Oral Answers to Questions

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

The Secretary of State was asked—

Coal Industry

Paddy Tipping: How much financial support has been made available to the coal industry in the current year.

Brian Wilson: Under the UK Coal operating aid scheme, £14,785,956 has been paid to coal producers since 1 January 2002.

Paddy Tipping: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, and for the help that has been given to the coal industry. Does he accept, however, that the best way to continue to have diversity and security of supply is to make a decision to back the British coal industry, just as a decision has been made to back the nuclear generator, British Energy? Is it not better to have indigenous sources of supply, rather than being dependent on imports of gas? Gas could constitute 80 per cent. of our energy provision by 2020, but 90 per cent. of it will be imported.

Brian Wilson: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. One of the major issues that the White Paper will have to consider is the extent to which we are going to become dependent on imported sources of fuel, as opposed to maintaining our historic self-sufficiency in energy sources. I do not accept my hon. Friend's analogy with nuclear energy. The reason for backing the nuclear industry was to maintain security of supply and the safe operation of nuclear power stations—of course, it would have cost more to close them down than to keep them open. I strongly believe, however, that we should have a UK coal industry, and I hope that what the Government have done in the past, as well as what we shall do in the future, underwrites that commitment in tangible terms.

Adam Price: Does the Minister recognise that most people in the industry believe that it is on the brink of collapse? Will he tell us why we are not going to get, as part of the draft 10-year plan, the maximum flexibility with all three forms of aid available, so that we can combat all the uncertainties that we will face?

Brian Wilson: I do not think that people in the industry believe that it is on the verge of collapse. That kind of talk does not help anyone, including the people who work in the industry. It is true that, as a result of the run-down of the coal industry and its privatisation in the 1990s, there is now only a relatively small number of deep-mine pits operating. Some of those are threatened by economic circumstances, some by geological circumstances. I would prefer, however, to consider them on a one-by-one basis. Since 1997—and certainly since I came into this job—when we have been asked to help and when it has been practical to do so, we have done exactly that. Let us look at the individual circumstances of each of this relatively small number of pits. The investment aid scheme, which we have had authorised by Brussels, and on which we are now consulting, would be another weapon to use in this battle.

David Taylor: The 450 workers at Daw Mill colliery, some of whom are my constituents, face an uncertain future because of geological difficulties, which could be eased by short-term assistance. Does the Minister accept that the Department of Trade and Industry cap of £5,000 per job is inadequate for that purpose? Should we not be able to devise a more appropriate aid regime? Why cannot we ring-fence some of the generating market for coal fired power stations with clean burn technology?

Brian Wilson: On my hon. Friend's last point, I have no doubt at all that the future for coal lies in clean burn technology. That is something that I am anxious to promote, both domestically and internationally. On the point about the cap, that was placed on the amount that any one producer could receive. Under the operating aid scheme, UK Coal received an amount up to that cap. I extended the scheme until the end of this year, but, if we were going to extend it further, such an extension would have had to be applied for by the end of October. The difficulties that have arisen at certain UK Coal pits recently are, therefore, not covered by the operating aid scheme. We think that a better avenue to pursue is the investment aid scheme, and that was also the view of the industry in the consultation process.

Dennis Skinner: Does the Minister agree that North sea oil and gas reserves are running out, and that we have a massive balance of payments deficit on our trade? Things are going to get even worse now, with our reliance on imported fuel of one sort or another. Money is being handed out to British Energy, as it has been handed out in the past to UK Coal and to Richard Budge. Does it not make sense to say that we will take over the industry—this small coal industry—for £70 million? That price is minimal compared with the cost of keeping on shoving money into the pockets of the coal owners.

Brian Wilson: I am sure that my hon. Friend has spotted the dichotomy between the previous request—that we should shovel more money into the pockets of the coal owners—and his approach, which has the virtue of simplicity. However, his basic point on the increasing dependence on imported fuel is extremely important, whether it is coal or gas. The White Paper must consider all that in the context of security of supply and this country's strategic interests in terms of energy and in the wider sense. I certainly believe that we need, and should have, a continuing coal mining industry. No one on the Labour Benches has anything but contempt for how the coal industry was treated in the decade before 1997. We have had to pick up the pieces and we have shown considerable commitment in doing so.

Liability Insurance

Brian Cotter: What recent discussions she has had with manufacturing firms on the cost of public and employer's liability insurance cover.

Nigel Griffiths: DTI Ministers have had a number of meetings with firms and with business bodies at which the cost of public and employer's liability cover was discussed. I recently met representatives of the Federation of Small Businesses and the Forum of Private Business, both of which raised the issue. My DTI colleagues have met other industry bodies.

Brian Cotter: Bearing in mind the fact that Axa Insurance has today announced that 210,000 small firms are operating without employer's liability, and therefore illegally, will the Minister ask the Department for Work and Pensions to carry out its review urgently, ensure that it covers issues such as competitive practices and consistency of cover, and ensure that firms are given proper notice when the insurance basis is to be changed?

Nigel Griffiths: I will certainly ensure that my colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions are aware of those issues and carry out a comprehensive and effective review.

John Cryer: I have had discussions with companies in my constituency, mainly building and scaffolding firms which report that their premiums are going up four and five times over a year. That is clear profiteering by the insurance industry, which blames 11 September, but what 11 September has to do with scaffolding I cannot imagine—it escapes me. The industry is using 11 September as an excuse, and unless we intervene to stop this naked profiteering, small and medium-sized firms will go under because of it.

Nigel Griffiths: My hon. Friend makes a good point. On 25 September, my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Construction met the National Federation of Demolition Contractors, which put points forcefully to him. It is important that spurious reasons are not given for driving up the cost of insurance. We have been working with the Association of British Insurers and the British Insurance Brokers Association to examine how small and other firms can be covered by liabilities insurance and how giving spurious reasons for not providing cover can be avoided.

Henry Bellingham: The position is obviously extremely serious and I am grateful to the Minister for what he is doing, but there are a lot of horror stories out there. What does he say to the Humberside family run steel fabrication business, which is, I believe, in the constituency of the Deputy Prime Minister, that has been forced to make five people redundant and cease trading because its combined public liability and employer's liability bill has increased from £3,600 to £28,000?
	I am well aware that the Minister cannot control market forces, but has he spoken to the Chancellor about the huge £300 million increase in the insurance premiums tax take? Could a cap be put on that take and some of the surplus paid back to business? Could not that money be used to provide a pool of employer's liability insurance, backed by the Government—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is far too long.

Nigel Griffiths: I welcome all practical and constructive suggestions, and I have met my colleague the Financial Secretary as well as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on this matter. The House will have been pleased to hear the Chancellor announce last week a review of the employer's liability insurance scheme. The impact on manufacturing and on the type of firm referred to by the hon. Gentleman will be important parts of that review.

Development Prospects (Warrington)

Helen Jones: What estimate she has made of economic development prospects in Warrington; and if she will make a statement.

Alan Johnson: Warrington continues to benefit from the conditions of economic stability, high employment, low inflation and low interest rates, which are the hallmark of the Government's economic policy. The regional economic strategy illustrates the way forward for the whole region to achieve a sustainable and competitive economy.

Helen Jones: As my hon. Friend knows, Warrington needs to create more highly skilled and highly paid jobs. Will he take a personal interest in the Omega site, which is the largest industrial development site in the north-west? Will he also liaise with the Deputy Prime Minister to ensure that the regional planning guidance, which in its draft form would hinder development of the site, will in its final form ensure that we can develop it to create jobs not just for Warrington but for the entire sub-region?

Alan Johnson: I know how important the site is, and I know of the problems that were raised during public consultation on the draft regional planning guidance. I will stay in touch with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who I am sure will take those representations into account before formulating the final version early next year.

Energy Prices

Bill O'Brien: What action she is taking with regard to energy prices for private households; and if she will make a statement.

Patricia Hewitt: Average domestic gas prices have fallen by 10 per cent. in real terms since 1997, and electricity prices by 19 per cent. Customers who switch supplier can, on average, save about £23 on their annual electricity bill and about £55 on their annual gas bill.

Bill O'Brien: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern for families on low incomes who face a cold Christmas? The £200 winter fuel allowance for pensioners is appreciated by many elderly people, but my concern relates to the future cost and supply of energy. We are warned that gas prices will rise, that nuclear prices will rise and that supply will diminish. The only stable fuel for energy supply is coal. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that the coal industry will be maintained, and that future energy supply will be guaranteed?

Patricia Hewitt: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the plight of elderly people, in particular, who face the prospect of a cold winter. The £200 winter fuel bonus that he mentioned amounts to over a third of the annual average fuel bill. We all know from our constituencies how welcome it has been.We will shortly publish the first of the Government's annual reports on the progress of our fuel poverty strategy, but we already know that some 2 million households have been taken out of fuel poverty.
	My hon. Friend raised extremely important points about security of supply, to which we will return in the energy White Paper.

Vincent Cable: I believe that wholesale prices have fallen by 40 per cent. over four years and retail prices by less than 13 per cent. Does that not imply that very large windfall profits are now being earned by the electricity distributors? Whom does the right hon. Lady hold responsible? Has the regulator perhaps been rather naive in lifting price-capping while competition is not fully effective? Or is the problem that the Government have given insufficient guidance to the regulator to attach priority to the protection of consumers, especially poor consumers?

Patricia Hewitt: As I have said, retail prices for electricity as well as for gas have indeed been falling. Industrial electricity prices have fallen by between 20 and 25 per cent. in real terms since the beginning of the reform of the electricity market in 1998. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the actual cost of domestic electricity is a much smaller proportion of the total bill than is the case with industrial suppliers, but we have asked Ofgem to keep a close eye on the operation of the market, and we are already making amendments to the new electricity trading arrangements to ensure that they work more effectively in future.

Kevin Hughes: If we continue to worship the guru who says that cheap is always best, how long will it be before most of our electricity is generated from imported sources? Will that not leave us vulnerable?

Patricia Hewitt: That is an important point. As both my hon. Friend the Energy Minister and I have said many times recently, in the White Paper we will look for the best way of ensuring in the medium and long term that we have the diversity of supply in our electricity market on which security of supply for all our domestic as well as our industrial customers depends.

Tim Yeo: I congratulate the Secretary of State on having recently exceeded the average length of tenure achieved by previous occupants of her post over the past 20 years.
	Does the right hon. Lady agree that energy prices would reflect the environmental costs of energy production more accurately if the arbitrary and burdensome climate change levy was replaced by an emissions trading system, and that such a system would allow both nuclear power and renewables to compete with fossil fuels on fairer terms?

Patricia Hewitt: The climate change levy has a very specific function, which we set out clearly when we introduced it, and that is to improve the incentives for investment in new, high-quality renewables. The climate change levy, coupled with the renewables obligation, is indeed strengthening investment in renewables, while at the same time the climate change levy provides an effective and powerful incentive to industrial consumers to improve energy efficiency. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the climate change levy was introduced following a report by Lord Marshall, the former president of the Confederation of British Industry. We are working with our European partners on the introduction of a European emissions trading system and we shall have more to say on that subject in the energy White Paper.

Industrial Policy

Phyllis Starkey: If she will make a statement on the place of science and innovation in the Government's industrial policy.

Patricia Hewitt: Science and innovation are at the heart of the Government's industrial policy.

Phyllis Starkey: Part of the justification for the very large sums of money that the Government have put into scientific research is that scientific research can be exploited for job and wealth creation, but small businesses are notoriously poor at picking up those results and turning them into extra jobs. What is the Department doing to try to encourage co-operation between small and medium-sized enterprises and university science and technology departments?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point because, despite the outstanding record of some smaller firms, the average performance in introducing a new product on which competitiveness depends is really quite inadequate. Last week, I announced a wide-ranging review of the UK's innovation performance and the results of that review will help us further to strengthen performance. What we are already doing through the LINK programme and through investment in the science base and, for instance, the centres of manufacturing excellence, is to make it much easier for small firms in particular to work far more closely with the science and technology base, and thus to introduce the new products and processes on which their future success will depend.

Derek Foster: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the commercialisation of science and technology and innovation is crucial to areas such as my constituency in the north-east? Will she therefore congratulate the north-east centre for scientific enterprise, which is based at Durham university, on its success and perhaps even beef up the amount of Government money that it can obtain?

Patricia Hewitt: I am delighted to have this opportunity to congratulate that centre on the investment it is making and on its success. I am very pleased to say that my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for small business will be visiting it in a fortnight. We have already in the past few years more than doubled the rate of spin-off companies coming out of the university science base, and I am sure that the centre in my hon. Friend's constituency will be just as successful in future.

John Bercow: In seeking to foster a climate for the growth of science and innovation and in recognising that regulation can be onerous and debilitating on the one hand, or enabling and protective on the other, can the right hon. Lady tell me and the House what assessment she has made of the benefits of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 1980 and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 1996 in the United States?

Patricia Hewitt: That was a long way of getting to an interesting point about regulation. I take some comfort, though not too much, from the recent report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which investigated the climate for regulatory reform across all industrialised countries. It found that the UK has a much better set of policy levers for bearing down on unnecessary and over-complicated regulation than almost any other country in the world. We have in particular looked at the example of the United States and drawn on the lessons from that and from other countries, including the Netherlands, to ensure that we remain at the forefront of good regulation, because we are determined to sustain the position that the The Economist intelligence unit recently identified of having one of the best regulatory and entrepreneurial environments for business in the world.

Gareth Thomas: Given that one aspect of science and innovation for which there is huge potential in Britain is the sustainable energy industry, does my right hon. Friend accept that a bolder and more ambitious target—such as 25 per cent.—is appropriate beyond 2010 for renewable technologies?

Patricia Hewitt: I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend, in general terms, about the importance of setting ambitious targets for sustainable energy. We shall of course be setting those targets in the energy White Paper, to which I know he is looking forward with great interest.

Trawlermen (Compensation)

Shona McIsaac: If she will make a statement on the compensation scheme for former Icelandic water trawlermen.

Nigel Griffiths: Following the 1997 election, the Government made a commitment to compensate former trawlermen who lost their livelihoods as a result of the settlement of the cod war with Iceland in 1976. Thousands of former trawlermen have received compensation totalling tens of millions of pounds.

Shona McIsaac: While I fully accept that the compensation scheme put right a serious injustice, will my hon. Friend put his hand on his heart and tell me whether he believes that further injustices may be being perpetuated because the standards of proof of eligibility are being set so high that many men are being denied the compensation owed to them? Does he feel that a balance-of-probability standard of proof would be better in these cases?

Nigel Griffiths: No, I do not. The independent adjudicator, who arbitrates on appeals, has so far been unable to provide a way of identifying vessels eligible for the scheme, and of preventing unsubstantiated or bogus claims from those who did not trawl in Icelandic waters. Any move away from the evidence that we have accepted to date would be unfair on more than 4,600 former trawlermen who have received legitimate payments.

EU State Aid

Clive Betts: What proposals she has put forward to reform EU state aid policy.

Melanie Johnson: We continue to press the European Commission to reform its state aid rules, to introduce more economic analysis to its consideration of cases, and to streamline its procedures. The Commission is receptive to our objectives and ideas.

Clive Betts: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. She will doubtless recognise the problems caused to many regeneration schemes by the Commission's outlawing of state aid given through the previous partnership investment programme. While welcoming the interim arrangements made with the Commission, does she accept that there is now a need for long-term, permanent agreements that allow state aid to be given in a way that recognises the importance of public-private partnerships in delivering regeneration in many of our towns and cities?

Melanie Johnson: I do indeed. We are pursuing a twin-track strategy on regeneration: we are encouraging the Commission to introduce a new regeneration framework, and in parallel we are supporting effective regeneration schemes under the existing rules. Given my hon. Friend's Select Committee work, he is well aware of that strategy, which includes six regeneration schemes for which approval has already been granted.

Mark Field: As the Minister knows, one of the ideas inherent in EU state aid policy is ensuring as far as is possible a level playing field throughout Europe in economic affairs. With that in mind, has she any comments to make on the agency workers directive, which her Government signed on our behalf only last week?

Melanie Johnson: This is unfinished business, as the hon. Gentleman ought to appreciate. He will also know that, in general, we are at the low end of state aid, and that the Commission regards us as a very good performer in terms of the overall league tables.

David Chaytor: In the context of the loan to British Energy and the necessary approval from the Competition Commissioner, if the Government were to reverse their previous policy of requiring nuclear generators to internalise the costs of radioactive waste management and decommissioning, would that be acceptable under current EU state aid criteria?

Melanie Johnson: As my right hon. Friend made clear in her statement to the House on 28 November, the restructuring is based on a proposal for solvent restructuring. That was preceded on 27 November by the European Commission approving the rescue aid that the Government are giving to British Energy. That approval also covers the proposal to fund the company until 9 March next year.

Tim Yeo: Will the Minister confirm that the £450 million of aid for rural post offices—finally announced to Parliament on Monday after being trailed by Government spin doctors in the middle of October—is not state aid but simply involves the spending of surpluses generated by the Post Office in its profitable years? Does not the need for that aid arise from the Government's mistaken decision to stop paying cash benefits to pensioners and other claimants at post offices, which will cut sub-postmasters' incomes by 40 per cent?

Melanie Johnson: That decision has been cleared by the Commission. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that his question is inaccurate, as pensioners who do not want to use the new arrangements will be able to turn to the universal bank, which will cover future payments through post offices. The House will appreciate that 3,500 rural post offices closed in the time of the previous Conservative Government.

Manufacturing Sector

Ben Chapman: What support she is providing to the manufacturing sector.

Patricia Hewitt: The Government's manufacturing strategy that was published in May identified seven key areas of activity for Government and industry that are crucial for manufacturing success. We are taking action in all of those areas to help British manufacturers cope with very difficult global conditions.

Ben Chapman: My right hon. Friend may be aware that Candy Domestic Appliances, a company that has manufactured refrigerators in my constituency for decades, recently announced its closure. Despite exemplary efforts by the unions and the work force, the company simply found that the pound-euro exchange rate was an uncompetitive barrier that it could not surmount. In the light of that, and of the global restructuring that is in train, will my right hon. Friend say what plans she has to help firms such as Candy, and to sustain a UK manufacturing base?

Patricia Hewitt: I was extremely sorry to hear about Candy's decision to transfer production from my hon. Friend's constituency out of the UK. As he is aware, officials from my Department were in close touch with the company and the unions throughout the discussions. We went through the various investment options to see whether the plant could be kept open. I am sorry that that did not prove fruitful.
	The Government have set out, in their manufacturing strategy and in the one published by the regional development agency, exactly what we will do to ensure that more of our manufacturers remain competitive. They can do that by improving skills, for example, and in particular by strengthening the links between smaller manufacturers and our outstanding science base. It is from that science base that the new products and processes that are the key to manufacturing success will emerge.

Richard Page: The right hon. Lady will be aware that, under this Labour Government, hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs have been lost in this country over the past few years. What representations has she made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and what calculations has her Department made, regarding the effects on employment in the manufacturing sector of the national insurance changes that will come in from April?

Patricia Hewitt: Every business leader to whom I have spoken since the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor agrees that it is essential that we put more money as a country into the national health service. The question therefore is not whether we are going to make more money available, but where it will come from. There is general support throughout the country for my right hon. Friend's decision that the costs of that investment in the NHS should be borne fairly, through a 1 per cent. addition to the national insurance contribution from employers, employees and the self-employed.
	I note that the Opposition want to go back on that increase in NHS investment. I do not think that that will commend itself to the public any more than most Conservative policies.

Martin O'Neill: Business across the country has welcomed the manufacturing strategy. Among manufacturers, there is qualified optimism about what could happen in uncertain times, but also still a nagging concern about the impact of the climate change levy on industries that are both capital intensive and labour intensive. Will she undertake an industry-by-industry survey of the impact of the climate change levy after 18 months? Will she try and give us an assessment of how the concept of fiscal neutrality is applied in this context? It seems to escape the understanding of many people, who are paying a lot of money and not getting much in return.

Patricia Hewitt: On fiscal neutrality, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made it very clear that there is no net gain at all to the Exchequer from the climate change levy, because what is paid by business has been recycled in lower national insurance contributions. It is also worth stressing that any business customer that secures its electricity from renewable sources does so without any payment of the climate change levy and any industrial company that has signed up to one of the energy efficiency agreements gets an 80 per cent. discount on their climate change levy. We are of course working with industry to keep the operation of the levy under review and in particular to see whether the eligibility for those 80 per cent. discount agreements can be widened in ways that would be beneficial to our industry.

Tim Yeo: Is not the best help that the Government could give the manufacturing sector a cut in the £47 billion of extra taxes that Labour has imposed on business, a cut in the burden of red tape and regulation, a decent transport system, a supply of school and college leavers whose qualifications and skills meet the needs of employers and a Secretary of State who fights the corner of manufacturers instead of criticising management?

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense, as he well knows. He has not bothered to refer to the cuts in corporation tax introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, the research and development tax credit—initially for smaller firms, now for larger firms, welcomed universally by manufacturers and worth nearly £500 million—and the substantial investment that we are making after years of neglect in developing skilled scientists, engineers and technicians—one of the most pressing problems for manufacturers. The hon. Gentleman fails to tell the House that we have lower levels of business taxation than Germany, France and Italy—lower, indeed, than 12 countries of the European Union. On all the recent international benchmarking surveys, we have a better regulatory environment than almost any other major industrialised country.

Andy Reed: I am sure that my right hon. Friend, as a fellow Leicestershire Member of Parliament, is aware that Brush Electrical Machines has had to reduce its working week to four days in recent times. However, there is good news for the company, if only we can get the assistance of the DTI, the East Midlands development agency and Leicestershire agencies to ensure that there is a shift in production to some new exciting products. Will my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that she will use her good offices, as a fellow Leicestershire MP and as Secretary of State, to ensure that the company gets every assistance to move this exciting project forward, even if that means some cash help as well?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend will understand that the Chancellor does not allow me to bring a cheque book to Trade and Industry questions. However, I readily undertake to ensure that my officials will work with him and with the company to see whether any help can be given, possibly through the regional development agency, to ensure that the exciting opportunities that are opening up to the company are seized and lead to success and further job creation.

Broadband Services (Perth)

Annabelle Ewing: What discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive regarding the introduction of broadband services in Perth constituency.

Nigel Griffiths: My right hon. Friend's broadband taskforce involves all the devolved Administrations and the English regional development agencies and is working to increase the availability and take-up of broadband throughout the UK. Scotland is also benefiting from the £30 million UK broadband fund. This has been the subject of consultation with the Scottish Executive.

Annabelle Ewing: I thank the Minister for his answer, but he will be aware that great swathes of my constituency of Perth are not covered by affordable broadband and that Scotland lags at the bottom end of the UK coverage league table. When does he foresee a national strategy for broadband roll out in Scotland? Will he undertake to discuss with his Scottish Executive counterparts a national funding package to secure broadband roll out as soon as possible in rural areas such as my constituency?

Nigel Griffiths: One minute—four facts. Scotland receives £4.4 million, the largest single allocation from the UK broadband fund. There are technology trials in Campbeltown, a rural part of Scotland, totalling £65,500. Establishing a wireless network in the Western Isles is getting £1 million worth of resources. In the hon. Lady's constituency, the DTI is contributing £70,000 to trials in Crieff to ensure the use of electrical means rather than telephone wires or cable TV. Any other Member from any other party would be congratulating the DTI and the Government.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot allow that question to go beyond the hills of Perth.

Fireworks

Harold Best: If she will propose legislation limiting the use of fireworks to local government licensed events.

Melanie Johnson: I have no plans to limit the use of fireworks to organised public displays, including local organised events.

Harold Best: Will my hon. Friend explain a little further why not?

Melanie Johnson: One reason is that it would require primary legislation and our current programme does not include such a Bill. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the Government supported a private Member's Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy). Sadly, it was talked out on 3 July 1998, but it would have included provisions such as those referred to by my hon. Friend.

John Randall: Does the Minister appreciate that many Members have received numerous complaints on the subject of fireworks, especially from people in urban and suburban areas? One of the biggest problems is the level of noise. In my constituency, that affects elderly people and people who keep livestock outside, especially birdkeepers. If the hon. Lady is unable to consider legislation such as that proposed by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best), is there some way noise from fireworks can be reduced to acceptable levels?

Melanie Johnson: I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman and his constituents, and indeed all constituents, including my own—all of whom have in recent times suffered from a high degree of noise nuisance from fireworks, as have their pets. The package of measures that I announced on 15 October will do much to cut noise from fireworks, because a ban on air bombs will be effective from January. They are among the noisiest repeating fireworks that are cheaply available and cause noise and nuisance that is completely unacceptable in local communities.

John Battle: Although I welcome the package of measures, they go nowhere near far enough. Fireworks continue to be sold well after bonfire night. Some fireworks are so powerful that they can blow up telephone boxes. It seems that there is consensus for legislation on both sides of the House, so can we introduce a licensing scheme, with licensed distributors, for the sale of fireworks and stop their sale from shops? Secondly, can local authorities licence events such as parties and celebrations so that there is some control of the whole business? I am sure that there is agreement on both sides of the House for the speedy introduction of legislation to tackle that abuse.

Melanie Johnson: I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a degree of consensus, which we welcome. I am also aware that we need to give the measures that I announced some time to take effect, as there will be a lead-in time for the fireworks industry as regards the sale of fireworks. However, in addition to those measures, the Government stand ready to look further at the need to promote quiet communities and to secure safety through other opportunities that may arise in the future.

Liabilities Management Agency

Tony Cunningham: What discussions she has had with trade union representatives on the implementation of the Liabilities Management Agency.

Brian Wilson: My officials are in regular dialogue with national officers from all the main unions representing the employees of British Nuclear Fuels Ltd., Magnox Electric and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. They have also held a number of meetings with union representatives at site level. A meeting with Sellafield representatives is taking place today.

Tony Cunningham: I very much welcome that, because my constituents in west Cumbria would urgently like a meeting with the Minister. Would my hon. Friend be prepared to meet representatives from west Cumbria, where there are serious concerns about the implementation of the LMA, especially as regards wages and conditions?

Brian Wilson: I should of course be pleased to meet them. I occasionally meet stewards and full-time officials from Sellafield, both formally and informally, and I should be pleased to discuss the issues and, I am confident, to lay their concerns to rest.

Andrew Lansley: When the Minister comes to implement the Liabilities Management Authority, is he proposing to transfer historic waste liabilities from British Energy to the LMA? If so, will he transfer with that funds and assets from British Energy commensurate with those liabilities?

Brian Wilson: That is still an open question and was not part of the arrangements announced last week.

Ceramics Industry

Ann Winterton: What recent assessment she has made of the future economic viability of the United Kingdom's ceramics industry.

Alan Johnson: The ECOTEC study published in March 1999 is the most recent report on the ceramics sector. This led on to the creation of the Ceramics Industry Forum, which is supported by £3.3million of DTI funding. More generally, departmental officials keep up to date with developments in the sector through regular meetings with ceramics firms and intermediaries covering a wide range of productivity and competitiveness issues.

Ann Winterton: Is the Minister aware that the UK ceramics industry has been better placed than its European counterparts to withstand competition from low-cost importers because of the comparative flexibility of the UK labour market? However, will he address the concerns of ceramics manufacturers in the Congleton constituency, as well as the British Ceramics Confederation, who believe that that slight advantage is being seriously eroded by the incessant imposition of unnecessary and unrelated regulations by this Government, which add costs and reduce competitiveness and will affect future investment and employment opportunities?

Alan Johnson: I accept that the ceramics industry feels that it has an advantage in this country thanks to the splendid policies of this Government. The intelligent question from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and the answer from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State addressed the issue of regulation. All sectors of manufacturing are, of course, concerned about additional regulations, but they are also extremely discriminatory in terms of the regulations about which we are talking. For instance, employment regulations such as the minimum wage, the right to paid holidays and the right that part-time workers be treated the same as full-time workers do not even register on most manufacturers' Richter scales. Most good employers in this country see such measures as decent and proper terms and conditions for their employees. The problems in ceramics are being addressed through the industry forum, for which the Conservative party was committed to remove funding as part of £300 million of cuts in business support. The industry is taking the issues forward and having an intelligent debate about regulations, which is not always what we hear from the Conservative party.

Joan Walley: May I dissociate myself from any call that the Government should not be looking at extending employment rights to workers in the ceramics and potteries industries? However, my hon. Friend the Minister is well aware that we cannot disguise the fact that the ceramics industry has faced severe problems, arising particularly out of the global market in which it is operating. It is important that we stick with the agenda of innovation and design. I invite my hon. Friend to visit—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the Minister.

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend can invite me to visit; I am just not sure where. [Laughter.] She makes an important point about the ceramics industry. The only answer—not just in ceramics but in other sectors—is to add value and to continually innovate, so that we can compete on the same basis as our competitors from Japan, Germany and the United States; not in terms of low pay or low skills but in terms of high added value. I should be pleased to visit Stoke-on-Trent. I was due to visit twice, but the visits had to be called off because of parliamentary business. However, we will rearrange the visit shortly.

Broadband and Television Services

Chris Bryant: How she intends Ofcom to ensure universal access to broadband and television services.

Nigel Griffiths: The Communications Bill currently before the House imposes a number of duties on Ofcom. These include securing availability of a wide range of television and radio services of high quality, calculated to appeal to a variety of tastes and interests, and securing these throughout the United Kingdom.

Chris Bryant: BT maintains that it is forbidden by competition law from rolling out broadband services in my constituency in areas such Treorchy and Ferndale unless it can prove that it is not subsidising doing so and that it has got 600 people signed up in the constituency. If that is true, is competition law an ass in this area? If it is untrue, will the Minister tell BT to get its act together?

Nigel Griffiths: I would appreciate it if my hon. Friend could supply me with the details, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set up the UK broadband taskforce, with a co-ordinator in each region and each devolved nation to ensure that public expenditure on broadband has the maximum impact on its availability. I will certainly draw the issue that he raises to the attention of the co-ordinator in his area.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

The Minister was asked—

Women (Public Life)

Helen Jones: What steps she is taking to encourage more women to enter public life.

Patricia Hewitt: We have introduced legislation on women's representation that allows all political parties to take positive steps to increase the number of women who hold elected office. With the Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women, I have been holding events all around the country for women who are interested in public appointments, and I am glad to say that the vast majority of the women who have attended those events now intend to apply.

Helen Jones: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer and for the work that she has undertaken on this issue, but may I ask her also to open discussions with many local councils to encourage them to hold their meetings at a time when more women can attend? In particular, may I ask her to pay attention to encouraging more women from deprived areas to put themselves forward for appointments in public life, so that we get a proper spread of representation throughout the country?

Patricia Hewitt: I entirely agree with the points that my hon. Friend makes. Where public bodies hold meetings in London, it is a matter of course to pay travel and child care expenses, but I agree with her that local councils and, indeed, regional bodies need to consider this issue, particularly if they are to ensure that they benefit from the skills and experience of women in low income families.

Fiona Mactaggart: Will the Minister look at the person specifications for many of those public bodies, which do not sufficiently value the experience of interacting with public service that almost every mother, for example, in the country has? Will she encourage Departments to consider specifically what experience of public services people who apply for appointment to public bodies have?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. A great deal of the skills that we need on public bodies includes common sense and the practical daily experience of bringing up a family and using public services. That is increasingly what those who make such appointments are looking for, but I will certainly draw the issue to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends who are responsible across Government for those appointments.

Andy Reed: What progress she has made in increasing the proportion of women appointed to public bodies.

Patricia Hewitt: I have already referred to the programme of events that my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women and I have been holding. I am delighted to say that 2,000 women have already attended those events. On 11 September, we will launch a practical guide that will help more women to find out about public appointments and apply for vacancies.

Andy Reed: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will she further explain those regional seminars? Has she been able to ensure that women from ethnic minorities from her own city—Leicester—and from Loughborough, of course, have taken part in them? We want people from ethnic minorities, particularly women, to come forward. Will she ensure that the specific needs of those groups are taken into account?

Patricia Hewitt: I am delighted to respond to my hon. Friend's question. I recently attended one of those events in Leicester with 200 women from black and Asian communities from Leicester, Loughborough and further afield, all of whom were extremely eager to seek appointment to public bodies and had an extraordinary range of energy and experience to offer. Any headhunter would have been proud of them, and I have no doubt that, in the next year or two, we will see many of them taking up vacancies on public bodies.

Sue Doughty: The initiatives that the Minister describes are all very welcome, but the number of women on public bodies has increased by only 2.7 per cent. since Labour came to power. We may compare that with other countries, such as Iraq. In the United Kingdom in 2001, the percentage was 34 per cent., but Iraq surpassed that figure in 1990. By 1998, the figure for women in the public sector was 40 per cent. The Government have set a target that women should hold 45 per cent. to 50 per cent. of the public appointments made by Departments by the end of 2005. In the same briefing, however—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not like to interrupt the hon. Lady, but she is supposed to be asking a supplementary question.

Patricia Hewitt: I think that I have got the gist of the question, although I must say that I would not have chosen Iraq as my exemplar of equal opportunities. A regime that employs professional rapists in its military hardly seems to me to be an exemplar that any hon. Member would wish to quote.
	The hon. Lady is, of course, right that we still have a great deal of progress to make in this area. Since becoming Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, I have been able to appoint, on open competition, Barbara Mills, Gwynneth Flower and Eve Pollard to the Competition Commission, Margaret Prosser and Angela Risley to the Low Pay Commission, Marisa Cassoni and Rosemary Thorne to the board of the Post Office, Barbara Thomas to the board of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and Catherine Mitchell to the energy advisory panel. We are, therefore, making progress, and my Department has a target to ensure that between 45 per cent. and 55 per cent. of appointments made each year will be women.

Margaret Moran: As my right hon. Friend is aware, many women in our communities are doing excellent work, and those skills should be recognised by public bodies. Those women are working, for example, on the new deal for communities, in neighbourhood renewal zones and on regeneration projects. Will she consider instituting an accreditation scheme so that the skills that those women acquire are recognised by the public bodies to which they should be applying?

Patricia Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the extraordinary experience that women, particularly those who are involved in neighbourhood regeneration, could bring to bear in local councils and in a much wider range of public appointments. I am wary, however, of the idea of a new accreditation scheme, as I think that that may complicate matters further. What may be more valuable—I know that she will want to assist in this—is ensuring that every public body that is seeking new appointees recognises the value of that neighbourhood and community-based experience.

Caroline Spelman: One of the problems with the crime of domestic violence is unduly lenient sentencing, as seen in the Court of Appeal this week. Can the Minister tell us what measures the Government have taken to increase substantially the percentage of women at all levels of the judiciary to help restore women's confidence in the criminal justice system?

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Lady makes an extremely important point, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has been enormously active in ensuring that outrageously lenient sentences in such cases are appealed by the prosecution and that the judiciary, male and female, are aware of the seriousness of this crime and reflect that in the sentences that they award. Of course, my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has been taking steps to ensure that there is a much higher proportion of women on the bench, which will certainly help to overcome the problem of lenient sentencing.

Greenfield Report

Phyllis Starkey: When will she publish the Greenfield report on increasing the involvement of women in science.

Patricia Hewitt: On 28 November, I published the report by the noble Baroness Greenfield, which contains a number of proposals for improving the recruitment and retention of female scientists and engineers. I warmly welcome Baroness Greenfield's report. We will study it carefully, and we will respond in due course.

Phyllis Starkey: I too welcome the report by Baroness Greenfield, and I urge other Members to try to get copies of it. May I suggest that, yet again, this report on improving the representation of women in science and engineering has concentrated on women in research, and particularly on women in research in the universities? I suspect that that is because of the availability of data. The scientific work force is much wider than that, and includes all levels of representation in the private and public sector. Will the Minister investigate ways of getting better data on women's representation throughout the scientific work force, and examine ways of improving women's representation throughout it?

Patricia Hewitt: I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend that I have already commissioned research that will give us a much better understanding of the number and percentage of scientists, engineers and technologists employed right across the private and public sectors. There is an important point behind her question. About 40 per cent. of the men who have science, engineering and technology degrees are employed in related occupations. Only about 25 per cent. of women with similar degrees are so employed, and about 50,000 women with science and relevant degrees are not employed at all. Therefore, a vast pool of talent is out there if only we and business can tap into it.

Business of the House

Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

Robin Cook: The business of the House for next week is as follows:
	Monday 9 December—Second Reading of the Extradition Bill. Followed by proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill. Followed by proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
	Tuesday 10 December—Second Reading of the European Parliament (Representation) Bill.
	Wednesday 11 December—Motion on the retirement of the Clerk of the House. Followed by a debate on European affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Thursday 12 December—Debate on DEFRA issues on a substantive motion covering agriculture and the environment.
	Friday 13 December—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the following week will be:
	Monday 16 December—Second Reading of the Hunting Bill.
	Tuesday 17 December—Second Reading of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill.
	Wednesday 18 December—Consideration in Committee of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill.
	Thursday 19 December—Motion on the Christmas recess Adjournment.
	Friday 20 December—The House will not be sitting.
	The House will return after the recess on Tuesday 7 January. I commend to hon. Members the handy pocket calendar produced by the Clerks of the House. [Hon. Members: XHear. Hear."] For the first time, it sets out the dates in full for a parliamentary Session.

Eric Forth: I thank the Leader of the House not only for the business for next week but for the news about the handy pocket calendar. I am sure that it will be essential for us all.
	Will the right hon. Gentleman please clarify exactly what the mysterious debate on Thursday 12 December will be about? So far, we are in the invidious position of not knowing what it will be about. We know that it will be about DEFRA, so can we have a guarantee that it will, at least, cover such vital issues as flooding, CO2 emissions, domestic waste and the like? Can we have clarification; otherwise it will look like just another case of Xdefracation"?
	Yesterday in PMPs—[Hon. Members: XWhat?"] Prime Minister's porkies. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) asked the Prime Minister about the drugs tsar and asked specifically:
	Xwhat has happened to him and his targets?"
	The Prime Minister first waffled about extra finance and increased spending, at which point Hansard records hon. Members asking XWhat about the tsar?" There was no reply from the Prime Minister.
	Matters then got worse. The Father of the House, no less, asked about a curious episode involving the Iraqi football team and FIFA. In his response, the Prime Minister said:
	XI would not say that we had better information than FIFA. But leaving aside that incident".—[Official Report, 4 December 2002; Vol. 395, c. 905-6.]
	At that point Hansard records, X[Interruption]", and no wonder. If the Prime Minister, when he reluctantly appears in the House once a week, refuses point blank to answer questions from myself, my hon. Friends or, indeed, the Father of the House, can we please have a re-run of Prime Minister's questions after this session each Thursday in an attempt to get some proper answers out of him?

Robin Cook: I have a high regard for the right hon. Gentleman. However, given the pun that he inflicted on the House, it will soon be time for him to take his Christmas recess—and preferably he will not return with puns that have come out of crackers. Those are the worst ones of all.
	I do not see any mystery about next Thursday's motion. I am repeatedly asked by hon. Members on both sides of the House to hold debates on agriculture, the environment and foot and mouth. It is right that we should have a full day's debate on those topics and a full motion will be tabled in good time. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that those Members who wish to raise the subject of foot and mouth, for instance, will be competent to do so under the terms of the motion.
	The drugs tsar is capable of speaking for himself. I would not dream of entering into that particular debate.
	On FIFA, although there appears to be a difference of evidence between those who played in the Iraqi football team, those who have managed to leave Iraq confirm that the incident in the dossier did happen to them, while those who remain in Baghdad continue to insist that the Hussein family is made up of perfect gentlemen, and that they have no complaints. I know which of the two I choose to believe.

Paul Tyler: The Leader of the House will be aware of the great deal of public concern about the strange sequences of bungled butlers' cases. He will have noted that the Prime Minister yesterday implied at column 902 that the Crown Prosecution Service is investigating that. Can the Leader of the House arrange for a statement from the appropriate Law Officer on who is conducting the investigation? Is it an internal one or is it objective on either side? What is its remit and the time scale?
	The Leader of the House will also be aware that, on suspension, the Northern Ireland Assembly had 28 Bills awaiting consideration. Those are now coming to this House in the form of statutory instruments and are jumbled together in threes. As they are to be considered in a Statutory Instrument Committee Upstairs, they cannot be amended. Is that a satisfactory way to ensure proper scrutiny? In particular, is it not curious that staff in the Stormont Assembly, who would usually ensure that the Bills are in a proper form, are being retained on full pay and twiddling their thumbs?

Robin Cook: On the question of the collapse of the butlers' trials, I have no first-hand personal cultural experience of employing a butler and do not know many people who have. The hon. Gentleman will have heard that the police have provided for an inquiry into their handling of the case. Indeed, I heard Lord Harris discussing that this morning. On the CPS, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that he expects it to learn the lessons and to do so quickly. Whether it is necessary to have a review to learn those lessons, I would not wish to say, but I hope that the CPS will reflect on the substantial sums of public money that were laid out on both trials. That must perplex many of my hon. Friends whose constituents come to them because they cannot obtain legal aid to assist them in much more important issues.
	On the Northern Ireland Bills, let us be realistic. There are enormous demands on the time of the Chamber and the House. I am pleased that by Christmas we will have had Second Readings of 17 Bills in this place and in the second Chamber. That is probably a record in the interval between the Queen's Speech and the Christmas recess and it shows the substantial progress that we are making. Within the limits of the pressure of Bills that it is necessary for us to introduce, we will obviously try to do all that we can in relation to our duties for scrutiny in Northern Ireland. But none of us is pretending that this place can be a satisfactory substitute for the Northern Ireland Assembly. That is why our efforts are focused on doing all that we can to ensure that the Assembly is restored. I hope that those who are in politics in Northern Ireland will assist us in that objective.

Alice Mahon: The Leader of the House will have read about the latest bullying of the inspectors by the White House yesterday, when it demanded Xmultiple, simultaneous, aggressive inspections". With this weekend's deadline for the Iraqis to produce their list of weapons or weapon materials due, can we have a debate early next week so that the House can vote on whether it wants to support the dangerous warmongers in the White House or to join with the rest of the world in seeking a non-military solution?

Robin Cook: We have recently debated Iraq and I am perfectly confident that we will have other debates on it. However, it is very important that we proceed with our legislative programme in the remaining two weeks before the Christmas recess.
	On the UN inspectors in Iraq, I have full confidence in Hans Blix, whom I had the privilege of meeting when I was Foreign Secretary. I have told the House that I believe he will do the job with great independence of mind and great thoroughness, given the nature of his technical and diplomatic background.
	It is worth recalling that at present barely a quarter of the total complement of the inspectors has arrived in Iraq. I am confident that as the complement builds up, so will the number of inspections.

Roger Gale: The Transport Act 2000 gave local authorities the right to introduce congestion charges. The Secretary of State for Transport appears, with good reason, to be getting cold feet about that. Given the likely public outcry, and the outcry from business that will face additional costs in January in London, will the right hon. Gentleman find time early in the new year for the House to debate the implementation of congestion charging in London under the Government's legislation?

Robin Cook: The House has provided the legislation under which congestion charges have been brought forward in London. The scheme for London is the responsibility of the Mayor of London. As we have repeatedly stated, it is important that in bringing forward a scheme, he seeks to achieve consensus and consent from the people of London, and ensures that the scheme will result in a better transport system for London. It is the mayor's scheme, not the Government's scheme. I would not wish to give the mayor the satisfaction of debating every proposal that he makes.

George Galloway: Will the Leader of the House try to find time for a discussion about the plight of British passport holders travelling in the illegally occupied Palestinian territories? My wife—one of those people—has been virtually arrested four times in a week, and told by the Israeli armed forces that the holding of a British passport is worthless for people of Palestinian origin. I have discovered through our excellent diplomats who are working in the area that this is a situation faced by every British citizen of Palestinian origin. My right hon. Friend will accept from me—I know that he knows this—that it is one of the mysteries of the age that important countries like ours allow Israel to get away with things that no other country would conceivably be allowed to do.

Robin Cook: In fairness, I should say that my colleagues at the Foreign Office complain robustly if there is any example of a British passport holder being harassed by Israeli authorities. As for the general thrust of my hon. Friend's question, I entirely agree with him. All British citizens are entitled to equal respect and equal attention, both by the British Government and by every other Government. British citizenship is blind on the issues of race or ethnic origin. That is absolutely right, and we are proud of our multicultural diversity. We must insist on the same rights of respect for all our citizens, whoever they might be, from foreign Governments.

Andrew MacKay: As the Leader of the House was in his normal place on the Government Front Bench during question time yesterday, he will have noted the confusion after the Prime Minister's answers to questions about university finance and top-up fees. It was to such an extent that in today's newspapers it is suggested that the Prime Minister has backed down. Yet the Secretary of State for Education and Skills says something that is quite the opposite. There is total confusion.
	May I ask the Leader of the House, on behalf of students and parents in my constituency and elsewhere, to arrange for the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, or better still the Prime Minister, to come to the Government Dispatch Box to clarify the situation, rather than hiding behind a suggestion that some time in February, perhaps, a decision will be reached?

Robin Cook: Early in the new year—possibly in January—a White Paper on the review of funding of students in higher education will be published. The right hon. Gentleman is asking for someone to come to the Government Dispatch Box to announce the results of that review before we publish the White Paper on the review. I know that this will probably be a vain plea, but I would invite the House to be more mature on this matter. There are a number of options to be debated, and it is right that these options should be put to the House and the country for debate. It is the start of a process. We should not start now to rule out specific options on the basis of closing down the process before it has even begun.

Louise Ellman: In view of yesterday's public statement from the chief executive of the Strategic Rail Authority, will my right hon. Friend clarify the role of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and Members of this place in deciding where investment in our railway system should go?

Robin Cook: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has rightly and properly drawn on the Strategic Rail Authority to try to ensure that the right priorities are set for the railway industry and that we get to grips with some of the major investment projects, such as the west coast main line, which have not been successfully taken forward by those who were in charge of them previously. We are putting a substantial sum into the 10-year programme, of which investment in the railways is a part. Responsibility for that rests entirely with the Secretary of State for Transport, who is accountable to the House. Everyone in the rail industry recognises that it is an advance to make the Strategic Rail Authority more hands-on, so that it can be in the driving seat and provide more leadership in the industry.

Martin Smyth: I understand the response that the Leader of the House gave the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on Northern Ireland Orders in Council, but may I have an assurance that if faults are found in those orders after they are passed, there will be opportunities, either in a forthcoming Northern Ireland Assembly or in the House, to amend them quickly? May I also plead for a debate in the House on Burma, so that its ethnic population and the Burmese rural community can have a sense of peace and provision at Christmas time?

Robin Cook: I am very sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's reference to the situation in Burma. When I was at the Foreign Office, I had the privilege of visiting one of the refugee camps in Thailand for people from Burma. I was deeply moved by the dignity and patience of people who were obliged to flee and by the tales of the very real brutality which had forced them to walk for days over the mountains to escape, including that of one man of 83 who was a former veteran with our own forces in the last war. We owe a debt of gratitude to those people for assisting us in the war. We will continue both to remember their plight and, as the Government are doing, to put pressure on the Burmese Government to improve and change their ways.
	On the issue of Northern Ireland, I am sure that if there are any faults in the orders, we will hear about them. Indeed, I suspect that I personally may hear about them on a Thursday morning. Should any such problems emerge, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is ready to rectify them.

Neil Turner: My right hon. Friend will be aware that after business questions there will be a statement on the local government settlement, which makes detailed and complex changes to the financing of local government. It will be difficult for Members to make detailed comments without having had the time to study the settlement. Will my right hon. Friend make time for a debate in the House so that when Members and their local authorities have had a chance to look at it, we can make studied comments on the changes?

Robin Cook: It is customary for us to debate the local government settlement some time after the statement, and I fully accept that many hon. Members will wish to express views on it. In fairness to the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, who will be making the statement this afternoon, I should tell the House that he asked me last week to provide notice of it during business questions. Having been given advance notice, hon. Members could be here to talk about the impact on their local area. I know that my right hon. Friend is keen to make sure that he maximises communications with the House, for which he should be respected.

Michael Jack: The Chancellor of the Exchequer was pleased to pray in aid of his estimates and statistics the endorsement of the National Audit Office. I mention that, because I wish to ask for a debate on Government accounting standards. When it comes to accounting for Network Rail's £21 billion contingent liability, the Chancellor rejected the very source of advice prayed in aid of his Budget assumptions. We should therefore have a debate to ensure that the Government are not indulging in any more Enron-style accounting practices.

Robin Cook: On reflection, I think that the right hon. Gentleman will feel that he did not find the right way of making his point. Nor does it assist the House to appear to imply that the public accounts are in any way irresponsible or false in the way that Enron's were. Were such an idea to gain currency, the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to admit that it would have a severe effect on his constituents and everybody else's, because it would reduce confidence in those accounts. The accounts are presented professionally on the advice of professional statisticians, and I see no reason to disagree at all with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's judgment on Network Rail.

Gerald Kaufman: I note that my right hon. Friend announced that the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill will be considered in Committee of the whole House. Has he considered whether it might be for the convenience of the House that at least part of the Hunting Bill should be considered in Committee of the whole House?

Robin Cook: As my right hon. Friend will be aware from his long and distinguished service in the House, the reason why the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill comes back to the Floor of the House is that it is a constitutional measure, and, by convention, we deal with important constitutional issues on the Floor of the House. The Hunting Bill does not necessarily or naturally fall into that category, but I hear what he says and I shall discuss it with my colleagues who represent the Department introducing the Bill. We should not lose sight of the fact that the Government deserve credit for bringing the issue before the House so that it can make a decision. At whatever stage, whether in Committee or Report, there will be an opportunity for the full House to take part in that decision.

Bob Spink: Can the right hon. Gentleman find time for a debate on the derisory Government funding of children's hospices and, in particular, of the Little Havens children's hospice in my constituency, which receives less than 2 per cent. of its income in Government support? We could also debate the Conservative manifesto promise of providing 40 per cent. Government support for children's hospices. Does he agree that that is a more appropriate funding level?

Robin Cook: I shall happily look into the particular case to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I fully understand that it must be a matter of immediate concern to his constituents. On the broad issue, however, we are frequently struck by the fact that we are faced outside the Chamber by Conservative demands for reductions in spending and taxation, but inside the Chamber we hear only demands for further spending. At some stage, the Opposition owe it to the rest of us to try to square that circle.

David Clelland: When does my right hon. Friend anticipate that the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform will report to the House? When will the House have an opportunity to vote on any options that the Committee might propose? Will those options be amendable and is it intended that the issue should be decided on a free vote?

Robin Cook: We have given an assurance that the issue will be taken on a free vote. That was the basis of my statement last June. Indeed, any motion that we put before the House is, by definition, amendable. My understanding is that plenty of options will be proposed by the Joint Committee, and I am not sure whether it will be necessary to table amendments to provide for any more options than the many with which we will be presented. As to the timing, I said last week that the Chairman of the Committee had given an undertaking that he would report before the winter solstice. The solstice is even nearer than it was last week, but, nevertheless, I believe that the Joint Committee has a programme of sittings that should enable it to meet that target.

Patrick Mercer: The Leader of the House will be aware that in the days preceding the terrorist atrocities in Bali and last week in Mombasa, certain Governments issued warnings to their travelling public. The British Government did not do so. In the light of the closure of the high commission in Nairobi, will the Foreign Secretary come to the Dispatch Box to explain the situation before more lives are lost?

Robin Cook: We have taken the decision about the high commission in Nairobi—it may be said that we have done so with reluctance, as we do not welcome the closure of business in any important capital—because of specific intelligence that we received precisely about a threat to that high commission, so it was right, proper and responsible for us to respond. We have received no information about a specific threat to residents in Kenya generally. That is why no specific warning was given.
	If we were to be pushed into a position in which, whenever we received a general warning that was not specific, we urged people to close down business in a wide range of countries, we would be doing exactly what al-Qaeda wants us to do. It wants to disrupt business, normal life and commercial success in such countries, and we should not try to anticipate it by doing that for it.

Kelvin Hopkins: Following the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), does my right hon. Friend agree that Richard Bowker's statement this week is more evidence of the catastrophe of rail privatisation that was inflicted on the country by the Conservative party? Does he therefore agree that we should have a full debate on the Floor of the House on the future of the railways in which we could even discuss the possibility of bringing the whole railway system back into public ownership and operating the state-owned system that works so well on the continent of Europe?

Robin Cook: I fear that the ambition of my hon. Friend's policy objectives would require more than one day's debate on the Floor of the House, but I would not disagree with his preamble, as what we are trying to do in introducing the additional remit that we have given to the Strategic Rail Authority is to remedy the weak regulation under which privatisation took place. We would not have had to take those steps or have this discussion if privatisation had not proceeded with such haste and been introduced with such incompetence.

Angela Browning: Would the Leader of the House agree to our having a debate on social affairs? Yesterday, the Prime Minister said:
	XI believe that signing the social chapter was essential in order to keep this country's influence in social affairs."—[Official Report, 4 December 2002; Vol. 395, c. 898.]
	I think that I have missed something, as before the Prime Minister signed the social chapter, we ourselves had complete control. I would be interested to hear about the benefits of the social influence that the Government have gained by signing the social chapter.

Robin Cook: I have always taken the view that if one is patriotic, one will want British people to benefit from the same rights as are available to those in our neighbouring countries. I cannot for the life of me see why the British people should be denied the advantage of the working time directive, which will give more than 2 million British residents the right to a paid holiday this Christmas—a right that they never had before. I recall the Conservative party saying before the last election that, if we signed the social chapter, it would cost Britain half a million jobs. Five years on, one and a third million more people are in work than before we signed it. The only people who lost their jobs were the Conservative MPs who opposed our signing the social chapter.

Gordon Prentice: May I get back to the royal butlers and the aftermath of the collapsed royal butler trials? Many people will be deeply concerned about the affect of recent events on the reputations of senior royals. Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read early-day motion 281, which I tabled?
	[That this House believes all members of the Royal Family who receive gifts from heads of state or heads of government should be invited to enter these in a register updated annually which would be made public, specifying in each case where the gift is located or how it was disposed of.]
	The motion respectfully calls for the establishment of a royal register of gifts, which would specify the gifts' location. If they had been disposed of, it would specify when and where. Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to draw the motion to the attention of those at the palace?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend's concern for the reputation of the royal family does him credit as a staunch monarchist. I read his early-day motion with interest when I studied all the motions this morning and I note the innovative idea that he proposes. I hope that it may be possible for the royal family to consider the proposal in the review that they are currently carrying out. No doubt, it would add some transparency, but it is a matter for the royal family to consider and I am sure that they will do so very carefully.
	On the two trials, we should not lose sight of the fact that the questions and lessons that need to be asked and learned perhaps rest more with the public services—the police and prosecuting authorities—than with the royal family.

Annabelle Ewing: The Leader of the House will be aware of the impending disaster facing the Scottish fishing industry, in which some 40,000 jobs are on the line. He may also be aware of today's mass rally meeting in Edinburgh, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). Does he accept that the urgency of the situation and the dire consequences for Scotland—the key decision in the Fisheries Council is being taken in December—merit an urgent statement from the Prime Minister to let us know what he intends to do as UK Prime Minister to fight for Scotland's fishing industry?

Robin Cook: We had a debate on the fishing industry only a couple of weeks ago. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), the Fisheries Minister, has done all that he can to keep the public and the House informed of our attitude. Of course, we fully understand the very deep concern in the fishing community about the proposed reductions. However, the hon. Lady should also express some concern about the state of North sea cod stocks. There will be no future for her community or the fishing industry if there are no fish. Unless we take urgent action on conservation, there will be no fish left. She owes it to her constituents not merely to represent their anxieties in the House, but to provide leadership in the local community to ensure that it is sustainable in the long term.

Harry Cohen: May we have early clarification and transparency on the Government's policy on the London Underground public private partnership? Have the Government backtracked on their commitment on an early transfer of the tube to Transport for London? What financial commitments flow from that?

Robin Cook: What the Government said in the recent statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is that we want to proceed with the PPP. It is precisely because we want work to continue in preparation for the PPP that we have provided the proposed indemnity against court action. However, it would be rather strange for us to transfer the London Underground to the Mayor of London while he is still contemplating court action to prevent the PPP from proceeding.
	I would say, as a constituency Member, that I am slightly baffled by the attitude taken by the Mayor of London on this question. I can assure the House that, if the sensible, pragmatic, forward-looking West Lothian district council were to be offered the billions of pounds now on offer to the mayor, it would, by now, have found some way for such a scheme to proceed. If the mayor really has the interests of his people at heart, he should now stop putting delays in the way of this project, and enable us to make the essential investment necessary to improve the London underground.

Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Leader of the House arrange for us to have a debate on parliamentary answers? Is he aware that I have put a number of questions to various Departments asking whether they would list the funds that they make available to organisations and individual members of the public who might apply for them? Most Departments have given reasonable answers to that question. The Secretary of State for Education and Skills, however, has provided me with this answer: XWe do not hold information centrally on all organisations and individuals who apply for grants, or the amounts paid. Therefore, this question could only be answered at disproportionate cost." Is it not ridiculous that the Department cannot tell elected Members of Parliament how it is spending public money, for which it is accountable to the House?

Robin Cook: I should be happy to consider the hon. Gentleman's question, but, the way I apprehend what he was saying, he was asking about grants to individuals. Frankly, I am not surprised that the Department for Education and Skills cannot say what individuals have received financial grants up and down the length of Great Britain. I would be surprised if any Minister were in a position to collate such information—indeed, I am rather glad that they are not. Ministers are there to ensure that the policy directions of their Departments are correct. They should not make individual decisions about who gets money out of them.

Michael Clapham: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the debate in the Chamber on 24 October on the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002, in which the Minister, accepting the world-wide mountain of evidence that white asbestos was dangerous to health, expressed an intention to implement those regulations. It is outrageous, therefore, that the Lords are seeking to annul those regulations this morning. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that, if the Lords make that decision, the regulations are brought back to the Chamber so that they can be implemented directly?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend has a long record of pursuing this issue, and he is to be complimented on that. It is certainly a matter that has a serious impact on those who have come into contact with white asbestos. I do not know what the outcome of the hearing next week will be, but I can assure my hon. Friend that it will be considered very carefully and, I am sure, expeditiously, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Sydney Chapman: Notwithstanding the debate due to take place a little later today in Westminster Hall on the third report of the Select Committee on International Development, can the Leader of the House hold out any hope that we might have a debate on the Floor of the House on one of the most important international conferences ever to have taken place—the world summit on sustainable development, in Johannesburg? Alternatively, does he think—perhaps this is a question for you, Mr. Speaker, rather than for the Leader of the House—that the all-embracing omnibus DEFRA debate in a week's time might give us the opportunity to raise these important issues?

Robin Cook: I am happy to confirm that the debate next Thursday will provide the opportunity for issues relevant to the Johannesburg summit to be raised. It is a debate on agriculture and the environment, and DEFRA was, of course, one of the lead Ministries to go to Johannesburg, so it would therefore be entirely competent to raise those issues in that debate. I am well aware of the interest, both in the House and among our constituents, in the contribution that the Government have made to international development, and I personally take great pride in the fact that we have increased by half as much again the overseas aid budget that we inherited from our predecessors. I will certainly look for opportunities for the House to debate that.

Jimmy Wray: In view of the confusion that has been created this week in the press and the media over health boards up and down the country, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the fluoridation of public water supplies? A legal case to prove that Strathclyde regional council was in breach of the Water (Scotland) Act 1946 has cost £2 million, and Lord Jauncey said at the time that he thought that fluoride was a Xmedicinal product". If that were the case, the council would be in breach of section 130 of the Medicines Act 1968, and would need a product licence to provide fluoride. It would also need to have the product passed by the Committee on the Safety of Medicines. Could we find time to debate this matter in the House?

Robin Cook: I fear—I say this with deep regret—that this might be an issue on which my hon. Friend and I have differing views. I should declare an interest in that I am vice-president of the British Fluoridation Society. Since my days, long ago, as a health spokesman for my party, I have never been in any doubt that fluoridation has a real and significant impact on dental health. As someone who has had more than his fair share of hours spent in the dentist's chair, I would wish to do all that I can to spare future generations that experience.

Andrew Turner: May we have a debate on Government abuse of the work permit system? In it, perhaps Ministers could explain to my constituent Toni Prior why her American fiancé, Troy Ridgeway, cannot obtain a work permit—despite the fact that he has gone through the legal process, has a job to go to, a home, and no recourse to public funds—when 1,200-plus permits are available to people from Sangatte who have no known jobs, homes or skills, and have shown their determination to abuse and bulldoze their way through the asylum process.

Robin Cook: I cannot comment on the case of the hon. Gentleman's constituent—[Interruption.] I think it would be deeply improper of me to comment, given the fragmentary information that I have been given in his question. On Sangatte, the one issue that has been raised more than any other in the Chamber over the past couple of months—including frequently at business questions—is the importance of the Government taking action on the number of people trying to come here illegally from Sangatte. We have now secured an outcome in which the camp is to be closed. We shall now no longer have illegal immigrants coming over from Sangatte. Only four arrived through the channel tunnel in the whole of October. Conservative Members cannot have it both ways. They cannot demand action to close Sangatte, then criticise the Government for achieving exactly that objective.

David Taylor: Following the question from the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) about the decision by Sir John Bourn, the Comptroller and Auditor General and head of the National Audit Office, that the £21 billion loan guarantee to Network Rail should have appeared in the Treasury balance sheets earlier in this Session, will the Leader of the House please find time for a debate on this matter? The amount of off-balance sheet activities that the Chancellor is sanctioning now aggregates to £100 billion or more, which is 10 per cent. of gross domestic product. This is more than a concern for sad accountants who ought to get out more; it is a concern for the House. We should demonstrate to the public at large that decisions at the heart of our economic strategy are based on professional decisions and not on political dogma.

Robin Cook: I am not quite sure what point my hon. Friend was making in his closing remark. [Interruption.] No, I mean that genuinely. I believe that we have immensely handicapped the investment in our public sector by the way in which we have refused to recognise that the economic activity of investment in our transport system has precisely the same economic impact whether it is done by the public or the private sector. If it is right for Network Rail to invest when it is a private company, it must plainly also be right and economically beneficial for it to do so when it is within the public sector. My hon. Friend should not be putting up barriers against sensible investment in our future transport system, which will be good and efficient and will make Britain more competitive.

Mark Francois: Will the Leader of the House find time for an early debate on the subject of increasing violence between next-door neighbours? I understand that, only recently, a married man living in the Westminster area was viciously mugged by his highly aggressive next-door neighbour after a long-running dispute over something called top-up fees. Will the Leader of the House tell us whether there is any truth in the rumour that the Prime Minister has now officially applied for an antisocial behaviour order against his own Chancellor?

Robin Cook: I—[Hon. Members: XAnswer!"] For a moment there, time stood still for me. I think that the hon. Gentleman was trying to be funny—

Keith Simpson: Yes, he was.

Robin Cook: Ah! I am glad to have that confirmation, because there was some doubt on this side of the House as to whether he was so trying. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, if he waits for the review next year, he will find that all neighbours within the Government are in full support of each other.

John Battle: Further to the question on asbestos from my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), if a proposal from a Conservative Front Bencher in the House of Lords on the annulment of regulations that have been debated in the House in Government time and signed into law can be passed, where does that leave us in terms of the process? The regulations on white asbestos are long overdue and we cannot afford a parliamentary ping-pong while people go unprotected.

Dennis Skinner: Get rid of the Lords.

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) expresses a characteristically robust view.
	Clearly, that is an issue of great gravity and of considerable and wide political interest. I am sure that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will take note of our exchanges and whatever outcome there may be next week.

John Bercow: Further to the Leader of the House's disappointing replies on top-up fees to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), may I reiterate the plea for an urgent clarificatory statement of Government policy? Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise the fact that, for so long as Ministers continue to argue like ferrets in a sack, doubt will continue to persist as to whether he stands by his statement of 24 April 1997 to Leeds university student radio, to wit, XTuition costs must be picked up by the state. We are quite clear about that."?

Robin Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking me down memory lane. My interview at Leeds university had slipped my mind, but I shall certainly make a point of reinvestigating it.
	Again, I must tell the House that if we are to have a review and if that review is then to provide a number of options, there is no point whatever in the House trying to decide which options should be in and which should be out before the first paper has even been published. It is important that the Government should have the capacity to propose options for consultation for debate, and I think it important that the Government should ask hard questions and be willing, occasionally, to ask themselves tough questions. That does not necessarily mean that the specific tough questions may be those that result in the chosen option, but we should not try to close down a debate before it has even begun.

Ian Davidson: Will the Leader of the House consider scheduling a debate following yesterday's announcement in Germany that unemployment there has risen to 4.16 million, which is 9.7 per cent. of the working population? Only seven constituencies in this country have a greater percentage of unemployed. Given that we are constantly being told that the euro is a great success, can we have a debate on what failure means?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend has strong views on those matters. If I may, I invite him to retain, if it is possible, perhaps not an open mind, but just the chink of a loophole in his mind to accept some new ideas on them when we receive the economic assessment. On the specific question of Germany, if he reviews the matter with German industrialists, he will find that many of them are clearly of the view that the German export industry would have been badly hit had Germany stayed out of the euro.

David Cameron: Will the Leader of the House find time for an urgent debate on the future of adult placement schemes? I raised the matter in the summer Adjournment debate, I have written letters to Ministers and tabled written questions, but I have not received a single answer. Is he aware that families who take in vulnerable adults and keep them out of the care system are giving up because they are regulated by the National Care Standards Commission and they have to work through 33 policies and a huge bureaucracy? Why cannot they be regulated by local social services departments, just like foster care schemes and as they were for many years?

Robin Cook: While it is important to have a local dimension to any inspection system, it is also important that schemes are operating to national standards. I would not accept any criticism of the importance of our having national standards to ensure that adults in care are properly cared for. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State responsible, who may wish to write to him, but I see nothing wrong with having national standards to protect some of the most vulnerable people in our community.

John Lyons: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the case of my constituent, Mr. Sandy Mitchell, who has been sentenced to beheading in Saudi Arabia. The legal process is under way in that country. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that time is found for Ministers to keep the House informed of any developments?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend touches on one of a number of very distressing cases that are of real concern to Her Majesty's Government. We have repeatedly made representations on those cases and our consul in Saudi Arabia is in contact. My hon. Friend rightly refers to what one might describe as the opaque character of the Saudi Arabian judicial system, but we will do all that we can within the limits of operating under that system to ensure that the case is represented and to secure fair treatment of Sandy Mitchell and the others who have been accused.

Andrew Lansley: May I reiterate the request for a debate made by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins)? In January 2002, the Strategic Rail Authority told my constituents that the West Anglia Great Northern modernisation and enhancement would be complete by 2006–07. Now we are told that it may happen in five, 10 or 15 years, if at all. The Leader of the House must recall that the chairman of the SRA, Richard Bowker, said in January that that plan marked a line in the sand. When will the House have an opportunity to find out what happened between January 2002 and today that means that all those potential rail network enhancements have been thrown out of the window?

Robin Cook: In fairness to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, he has taken action to try to ensure that we can achieve greater certainty and a greater sense of priorities among the major projects that are necessary to modernise our railway system. The Conservatives, however, suspended virtually all investment during the rail industry privatisation, which resulted in spectacular failures of investment in major lines, so it hardly lies in the mouth of a Conservative Member who supported that privatisation to criticise us as we try to sort out the mess that they left behind.

John Cryer: Following on from the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen), there seems to be a widespread and genuine belief that the Government intend not to transfer the tube from the aegis of London Underground Ltd. to Transport for London. Some of us have dealt with the senior London Underground managers and, if for no other reason, we are filled with alarm when we envisage them dealing with some of the sharpest operators in Britain in the form of Jarvis and the others. Can we have a debate, or at least a statement, to clarify the confusion that seems to be generated as to the tube's future?

Robin Cook: I am happy to do what I can to roll back any confusion that may exist. As I understand the position, there is no doubt that Government policy is to transfer London Underground to Transport for London. The only question that has arisen in the light of the Secretary of State's statement is how quickly we can do that. Plainly, it is difficult to contemplate transferring London Underground when the Mayor of London is still maintaining the possibility of legal action to stop the PPP proceeding. The way forward is perfectly clear and perfectly simple: the Mayor of London has to accept that London needs a modern underground system. It needs investment to secure that, and the way to get ahead with that investment is to allow the PPP to proceed. We must not put the money into the lawyers rather than into the underground.

Roy Beggs: Will the Leader of the House make time for the Foreign Secretary to come to the House to make a statement on UK relationships with Iran and afford the opportunity to discuss the abuse of human rights there as well as the execution of women and of prisoners who are politically opposed to the brutal regime of the mullahs? I believe that the matter is urgent, and there are allegations that Iran, too, is acquiring weapons of mass destruction.

Robin Cook: Of course, there are human rights abuses in Iran—indeed, the Government have repeatedly condemned and made representations about them—but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to discuss our relations with Iran he should also recognise that there have been elections in which the overwhelming majority of those voting elected for people who want to take Iran forward in the 21st century and who want to roll back the repressive power of the mullahs. It does not help those who want change and modernisation in Iran to confuse their representatives with those mullahs to whom he refers.

Local Government Financial Settlement 2003–04

Nick Raynsford: With permission, I should like to make a statement about local authority revenue finance for England 2003–04.
	I am pleased to be able to announce that next year's local government settlement will see total support from Government grant and business rates of £51.2 billion. That is a cash increase on this year's settlement of £3.8 billion, or 8 per cent. It provides substantial real-terms growth in the funding we are providing for local government. The £51.2 billion consists of £24.3 billion in revenue support grant, £15.6 billion in business rates, £4.1 billion in police grant and £7.3 billion in special and specific grants. Today, I am announcing details of the allocation to individual authorities of the £39.9 billion of revenue support grant and business rates. Taken together with the police grant, that represents an increase of 5.9 per cent. cash over this year's allocation.
	We announced last year that from 1 April next year we would introduce a system for distributing grant between authorities that would be fairer, more transparent and more just. Members will know that we have taken a long hard look at the grant distribution system. We had no doubts about the need to replace the outdated and discredited standard spending assessment system, but developing a robust, appropriate and fair replacement has been a challenging task, not least because of the many competing claims from different categories of local authority.
	We held detailed discussions with local government and those with expertise in this area as we looked at all the current formulae and the options for change. We held 15 meetings of the technical group in just over a year, and many more meetings were held with those with an interest, covering education, police, personal social services and other council services. We then carried out a wide-ranging consultation on those options, including useful seminars and debates in the House in which Members let us know their views. The consultation paper included 47 specific options, and another 52 exemplifications were carried out at the request of local authorities.
	We received some 55,000 responses to the options on which we consulted over the summer. More than 1,000 of those came from councils, members of the public, Members of Parliament, business organisations and others with an interest; the remainder were sent in response to various campaigns. Several petitions were also received. I announced the publication of an analysis of those responses earlier today by means of a written statement. Copies of the analysis have been placed in the Vote Office.
	To reach a conclusion we needed to balance the pressures, the evidence and the representations. One of the major problems with the old SSA system was that it attempted to take a view on what authorities needed to spend. That was unrealistic and inconsistent with our approach to devolving responsibilities, so we will not continue the arrangement. Notional spending allocations do not imply anything about the budget or spending choices that will need to be made. Councils, in consultation with their council tax payers, should properly take such decisions. The one exception is in respect of the Government's key priority of education: we have said that we want to see authorities pass on increases to schools. In summary, the purpose of the new system will be to distribute grant according to authorities' relative circumstances and relative ability to raise resources from council tax.
	The new grant distribution formula will, in the main, no longer rely on past spending patterns. That is one of the main criticisms of standard spending assessments. The new formula will ensure that the distribution of grant is relevant to the circumstances that councils face now, reflecting up-to-date spending patterns where appropriate.
	We have worked hard to make the system less complex and difficult to understand. This was never going to be easy. The sheer size of the sums going to local authorities, the wide-ranging responsibilities undertaken by councils and the differing circumstances faced by authorities across England mean that there will inevitably continue to be a degree of complexity in the formulae used. However, we have simplified the structure of the system, which can be summarised as a basic allocation to each authority with top-ups reflecting particular circumstances such as deprivation, high wage costs and sparsity.
	The formulae also no longer include the perverse incentives and inadequate indicators that were present in the old system. For example, the old fire formula was based on the number of calls each authority received. That meant they had little financial incentive to improve fire safety and safety education, and so reduce the number of calls. We have tried to remove such anomalies from the new system.
	Many Members will have a particular interest in our decisions on the area cost adjustment. We have concluded that pay costs should be recognised within the system, but the ACA has been redesigned to minimise the Xcliff-edge" effect. It will in future better reflect the different circumstances in London and the south-east, and the fact that authorities outside those areas have differing pay costs. It will also reflect the needs of areas outside the south-east with high pay costs.
	We have also increased the extent to which the system takes account of councils' relative ability to raise council tax, known as resource equalisation. It means that we make a more realistic assumption about average council tax. It does not mean that we reward high spending.
	We have made good the promise to ensure that no authority's schools will lose out in real terms from the changes. The new education formula ensures that every education authority's per-pupil allocation will rise by at least 3.2 per cent. in cash terms, well above inflation.
	The environmental, protective and cultural services formula has been greatly simplified, and now better recognises the basic costs that all authorities face. We have made some detailed changes to personal social services, simplifying the system so that there is now a single formula for residential and domiciliary care for older people—although as PSS was reformed comparatively recently, these changes are less extensive than others. We have listened to the argument put to us by small authorities, particularly shire districts, that they face a fixed Xcost of being in business". We have allocated a flat-rate £300,000 element to most classes of authority to recognise that cost.
	As I promised, the system will incorporate floors and ceilings to safeguard authorities from excessive short-term variations in grant. For the last two years we have guaranteed that no authorities would receive less grant than they did in the previous year on a like-for-like basis. Councils with education and social service responsibilities did significantly better, of course, and last year we were able to ensure that all councils received a grant increase at least in line with inflation. As Members will know, we have already made it clear that no local authorities will receive a cut in grant next year in cash terms.
	The Xfloors" will ensure that every authority in the scheme gets a reasonable level of grant increase, given the overall distribution and the total level of funding available. To pay for the floors we will impose a maximum on grant increases, and scale back the rises received by authorities between those two levels. I am pleased to be able to announce that I am setting the floor levels so that in 2003–04 all authorities will receive a grant increase on a like-for-like basis well ahead of inflation. That means a real-terms increase in grant for all authorities.
	The floor increases in cash terms for police and fire authorities and shire districts will be 3 per cent. The floor for unitary authorities, county councils, metropolitan districts and London boroughs will be 3.5 per cent. To pay for the floor increases we will set a ceiling of 4.9 per cent. for single-service police and fire authorities including the Greater London Authority, 8 per cent. for unitary authorities—county councils, metropolitan districts and London boroughs—and 12.5 per cent. for shire districts. Increases above the floor but below the ceiling will be scaled back by 5.4 per cent. for police and fire authorities, 1.3 per cent. for shire districts, and 4.6 per cent. for authorities with education and social service responsibilities.
	As I said earlier, we will phase in the new education formula in such a way that no authority's schools will lose out in real terms. The education formula will incorporate a floor of 3.2 per cent., in cash terms, and a ceiling of 7 per cent. per pupil.
	In addition to the increases in funding for local authorities' general grant, we are providing further increases in grants for specific initiatives. Of key importance will be the neighbourhood renewal fund, which will allocate £400 million of grant via local strategic partnerships to help support and kick-start public services in the most deprived areas—£100 million more than in the current year. On a like-for-like basis, local authorities will receive £1.3 billion more next year in special and specific grants.
	As we promised in the local government White Paper, we have looked closely at these grants to ensure that ring fencing is kept to the minimum necessary. Members will be aware from the recent announcement on freedoms and flexibilities that the proportion of funding paid to local authorities as ring-fenced grants will, on current plans, be reduced over the three years of the spending review. Excellent councils will also receive additional freedoms from ring fencing. Ring-fencing revenue funding is set to decrease from 12.4 per cent. to below 10 per cent. by 2005–06.
	Our plans for next year provide local authorities with good increases in grant. The increases mean that since 1997 we have raised Government grant to local authorities by some 25 per cent. in real terms, compared with a 7 per cent. reduction in real terms in the last four years of the previous Administration.
	There could be no clearer illustration of our commitment to supporting and helping local authorities to deliver the strong local leadership and quality public services that local residents rightly expect and that local government wants to provide.
	Given the significance of the review that we have undertaken, local authorities have understandably been awaiting today's announcement with some anxiety. Some authorities have been predicting a settlement under which councils will have to make cuts or impose significant council tax increases. I am glad that today's announcement demonstrates that those fears, and the scaremongering from our political opponents about cuts in grants, were unfounded and unjustified. The good increases in funding provided by the spending review, the realistic levels of floors and ceilings we have been able to set, and the decisions we have taken on the distribution of grant to local authorities mean that there is no reason why councils cannot continue to improve services while sticking to reasonable council tax increases. Today's proposals are good news for local government and as such I commend them to the House.

Eric Pickles: I should like to say a little more than the ritual thanks to the Minister for giving us early sight of the statement. To his great credit, he went out of his way to ensure that all hon. Members have a very clear idea of the changes. I am sorry, therefore, to start on a slightly sour note, but I shall be brave about it.
	A written ministerial statement promised that the consultation analysis would be available in the Vote Office and the Library. I am sorry to tell the Minister that it is not to be found in either place; I hope that his officials will ensure that that is rectified.
	Today, we know the real cost of the Chancellor's vanity and who pays the price of his failure to add up the figures in March. Today, we will see for the first time ordinary families on ordinary salaries in ordinary homes facing £1,000 council tax bills. In the few short years since Labour started to target them, ordinary families' council tax bills have risen by more than 40 per cent. Council tax bills of £1,000 are just the start. The Government have promised a 16 per cent. increase in council tax over two years—a slippery stealth tax buried on page 197 of the pre-Budget report: so much for open government. Council tax bills of £1,000 will be in addition to the £35 a week for every man, woman and child that will be paid in extra taxation. The Government propose the introduction of a new band of council tax, which will push even more middle-income families into higher bands, particularly in the south-east and London. This will make matters worse.
	In last year's statement on the local government finance settlement the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), said:
	XThere is no reason why we should see large increases in council tax"—[Official Report, 4 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 169.]
	Yet average council tax in England went up by 8.5 per cent.—four times the rate of inflation and the biggest cash increase in the history of council tax. However, the right hon. Gentleman should recognise that last year was part of the grand tradition of local government settlements established by the Deputy Prime Minister, who said in his statement in 1998:
	Xwe look to local authorities to set sensible budgets that will keep council tax increases as small as possible." —[Official Report, 5 February 1998; Vol. 305, c. 1259.]
	The reality was that different council taxes rose by 8.6 per cent. in band D—three times the rate of inflation.
	The Minister has just said that the distribution of grant to local councils means that there is no reason why councils cannot continue to improve services while sticking to a reasonable council tax increase, yet the Government have promised a rise of 16 per cent. over two years, or seven times the rate of inflation—a rise caused mainly by this settlement and the rising burdens that the Government have placed on local government.
	Last year the former Secretary of State promised:
	XFrom 2003, we will introduce a system that is transparent, fair and just." "—[Official Report, 4 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 169.]
	It is right that we should judge him on those criteria. The Deputy Prime Minister has added his own special touch of mystery and ambiguity to a system that was complex and incomprehensible. We now have a system that is more complex, opaque and unjust than the one that it seeks to replace. The labels may have changed, but the reality remains the same. This is looking less like a consultation exercise and more like the last page of XAnimal Farm", when the animals could not tell the pigs from the people. All this has been done just to transfer money from Conservative authorities to Labour ones. It seems that the Government are using a particularly heavy sledgehammer to give money to a few nuts.
	It seems that the front-page headline in The Times in July was right when it predicted:
	XLabour will tax Tory voters to fund heartlands"
	Mr. Steven Pugsley of the Rural Services Partnership said that
	Xtaking money away from rural services at a time when communities are looking for ministers' reassurance that they have their interests at heart would be unforgivable. The options under consideration would decimate vital services to market towns, villages and rural communities"
	Last year, the Government made great play of the fact that there would be no scaling back of grant to pay for the floors and ceilings. The effect of scaling back falls on to a relatively small number of authorities. Birmingham would lose £1 million, Oxfordshire would lose £800,000 and Derbyshire £750,000. This year the Minister has announced the reintroduction of scaling back. What is the cost of this scale-back and will he confirm that it will affect local education authorities? How much money will be cut from education?
	The new system depends heavily on a council's ability to raise council tax—resource equalisation. The Minister hopes optimistically that this does not mean that we will reward high spending, but it does mean that well-run councils that have been prudent and kept council tax down will be penalised. The system will penalise debt-free authorities that will face having their capital receipts raided to pay for badly run authorities.
	Let us put partisanship aside for a moment. Next week we will have the verdict of the Audit Commission on councils in England. Conservative Members suspect that high-performing authorities will lose grant and need the protection of the floor announced today. Equally, we suspect that low-performing authorities will be rewarded by the settlement. Will the Minister give a guarantee that this will not happen?
	Poverty and need are treated differently depending on where one lives. Can the Minister explain why, under the formula, Lancashire receives £85.48 more per child than Leicestershire and why Durham receives £83.20 more per child than Buckinghamshire? Is it not a sad reflection on the formula that Labour has chosen to ignore and airbrush out rural poverty?
	The minimum grant or floor announced today will be insufficient to meet the needs of local education authorities in that it refers only to schools and pupils. This complex minimum grant takes no account of pressures facing LEAs such as school transport and special educational needs. If authorities are forced to apply for grants wholly on education, little will be left to fund other front-line services. This will lead to a macabre game of musical chairs. Councils will raid social services budgets; pressure from the needs of the elderly will lead to bed-blocking, which in turn will cause the Government to fine authorities, leading to an increase in council tax. It makes no sense to have different Government Departments tugging each other and local authorities in opposite directions, all because, in the words of The Times:
	XLabour will tax Tory voters to fund heartlands".
	Does the Minister agree with the Chancellor's estimate that council tax will increase by 16.3 per cent. over two years? Will he confirm that band D properties will incur bills of £1,000 for the first time? How many authorities, and how many local education authorities, will receive just the floor figure? How many LEAs' grant will be subject to scaling back, and can the Minister explain the curious fact that, according to his statement, the amount raised through business tax is £1 billion down on the figure published in Hansard last year?
	This is a missed opportunity. Consensus could have been reached on reform of the system; instead, the Minister has chosen to ignore advice from Members on both sides of the House. This is the same old Labour, and the same old fiddled figures.

Nick Raynsford: To change the tone, may I start by thanking the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) for his kind words about the provision of information? I say to him quite openly that this is a complex subject, and we tried our best to ensure that all Members had the opportunity to see the figures, and to understand what we are seeking to do. The full details are in the Vote Office, but, according to the normal convention, they were accessible only from the moment that I sat down.
	The Opposition have been scaremongering about council tax increases for some time—long before this settlement. They talked about the threat of cuts in services, and about huge council tax increases, but those claims were based on wholly erroneous and unjustified interpretations of the consultation. It is now absolutely clear, as I hope they will have the good grace to admit, that all that scaremongering was unjustified. I hope that they will at least ponder the contrast between this Government's 25 per cent. increase in support for local government over six years, with the 7 per cent. real-terms cut under the Tories.
	The hon. Gentleman's claim that the settlement will force up council tax is simply wrong, as is his claim that rural areas will suffer a loss. If he looks at the detailed figures, he will note that rural shire districts across the country as a whole get a 7.6 per cent. grant increase. What a contrast that is with the individual cuts that they suffered under the Tory Government! I can attribute his claim that the scaling factor will result in a loss to education authorities only to his misunderstanding of what it is. The scaling factor is designed to help to pay for the cost of the floors. The floors are supported first by the ceilings, but authorities that would otherwise receive more than the ceiling do not do so, and the scaling factor reduces by a very small margin the grant—

Eric Pickles: What is it worth?

Nick Raynsford: I have already given the hon. Gentleman the figures. They are in the statement, which he had for three hours before the debate, and I am astonished that he has not even bothered to discover them.
	The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that high-performing authorities are somehow going to be penalised is quite wrong. There is no correlation between the work done by the Audit Commission, which is looking at the performance of authorities, and the needs assessment that informs the distribution. He will see that some high-performing authorities receive very good grant increases, and that some authorities that are performing less well also do so. That is because the two activities are quite separate. I am sorry that he has failed to understand that.
	The hon. Gentleman's criticism of the children's education allowance is particularly ill-founded in a year in which we can state that, overall, there is a £200 per pupil average increase. That is in marked contrast to what happened when the Tories were in power. He confused the Chancellor's estimate of council tax increases in the Red Book, based on previous year trends, with what will actually happen, which will be a matter for individual authorities to determine. He also asked about the number of authorities that will get the floor level increase. The answer is clear from the figures that I have already provided, but he ought to be pleased that the floor is there. Without it, many authorities would suffer losses.
	I shall pause for a moment to describe one scenario. Westminster city council has faced a real problem, not because of anything to do with our Department but because of the census data, which show a significant fall in the population of that area. Were a floor not in place, that authority would have suffered a serious reduction. Is he complaining about our efforts to provide protection for authorities through such a floor? His remarks suggest that the Conservatives have a wholly unsatisfactory understanding of what we are seeking to do. Their approach to local government has been condemned by their own record in government.

Edward Davey: I thank the Minister for his statement, and for his courtesy in providing a particularly early sight of these very complex figures. I begin by welcoming a particular aspect of the statement. The Government have listened to some of the representations that were made. I am glad that Ministers have now checked the map and that they now recognise that Kingston-upon-Thames is not in east London.
	Overall, however, the statement is extremely worrying for my constituents and for millions more. Rather than increasing council freedoms, the statement is a control-freak statement. Rather than being generous with Government money, the settlement is generous only with council tax payers' money. Does the Minister not realise that he has utterly failed to deliver on his promise of a fairer, more transparent and simpler system? Is it not true that, under the new system, there will be large council tax rises in the worst-hit areas for several years? How can that be fair?
	Despite the Minister's claim that he is reducing ring fencing, most councils will see more special grants next year. He has abolished seven special grants and introduced 16 new ones, but how can feeding that financial fog increase transparency? Is it not true that, by looking solely at the grant system and failing to replace the unfair council tax, and to take budget power from Whitehall, the Government have missed the chance to establish a genuinely simpler system? As the Minister admitted, the Treasury predicts a 7.2 per cent. rise in council tax next year, but do not the Government always underestimate council tax rises—by a massive 3.1 per cent. last year? Is there not a real threat that average council tax rises next year could top 10 per cent.—four times the expected rate of inflation? The Government cannot duck the blame for rocketing council tax. It is Ministers who place councils in a financial straitjacket, with less room to move than Houdini, but they cannot escape the blame.
	The Minister claims that his floors and ceilings will protect council tax payers, but he has set the level very low. Does he acknowledge that, at best, such protection will be partial and short-lived? What will happen in year 2 or in year 3, when the changes really kick in? If he is so concerned with protecting the losers, why were the Government not honest enough to announce the floors for years 2 and 3? Not only would that have shown the truth about this statement; councils could have planned for the future. Indeed, through his own local government Bill the Minister will force councils to plan budgets over the longer term, yet in this statement he is refusing to give councils the very information that they need to make those plans. Is he not just a little shamefaced about that hypocrisy?
	The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) complained greatly about shifting cash between different authorities: I say XWestminster and Wandsworth" to that. Will the Minister at least concede, however, that huge shifts leave him open to the charge of gerrymandering? Does he not realise that, because the grant review was so rushed, that charge will stick? Will he confirm that he has breached Cabinet Office guidelines on good consultation by releasing the consultation's conclusions along with his settlement? Should not the Government have learned from their embarrassing mistakes in last year's settlement, and from the A-level debacle, and delayed the review by one year to allow for a full and independent analysis?
	The most disappointing aspect of today's statement is without doubt the Minister's failure to bring clarity and equity to local education authority budgets. In so doing, he has ignored the principal recommendations of every professional group: Ofsted, the Audit Commission, and head teachers and governors associations. Why did he reject their idea that the bulk of education standard spending should be distributed using an activity-led formula? Given that the Government are increasingly telling schools what to do, why has he abandoned the principle of activity-led funding in favour of the discredited historical spend data? Will he explain to the House how schools appear to have lost £250 million between the Chancellor's spending review and this statement?
	It was noticeable that the Minister did not bother to boast about increases for social services. Frankly, we are not surprised. Will he confirm that, with increased demand pressures and national insurance costs, the settlement represents at best a standstill for social services? How will that solve bed blocking and help children at risk? The Government may say that it will take time to make up for the lost years of Conservative underfunding, but social services are often life-and-death services. Why have they fared so badly?
	The Minister said that the Government were removing the perverse incentives in the formula for fire authorities. When will he publish the new formula?
	When they began the settlement process Ministers promised to move a mountain, but they have brought forth a molehill. The Minister can rightly claim that this is a better settlement than any delivered by a Conservative Government, but it will mean council tax hikes and little new cash for the most vulnerable. It will certainly not lead to the rebirth of local democracy.

Nick Raynsford: I thought that the spokesman for the official Opposition had made a pretty poor fist of his response—until I heard the Liberal Democrat spokesman's effort. I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's acknowledgements of the representations that he made in respect of his constituency, and I am pleased that he is pleased that we listened to them. I shall make no jibes about geography.
	I wholly reject the hon. Gentleman's allegation that the Government have a control-freak tendency. The settlement is part of a process in which we are devolving greater power and responsibility to local authorities, as I am sure he will understand when we discuss the Local Government Bill in Committee later in the Session.
	The hon. Gentleman complained about council tax rises, without mentioning that Liberal Democrat councils had the largest increases last year. Liberal Democrat Members should look to their local authorities before they criticise others. He also asked why we were not giving absolute guarantees of the floors and ceilings for future years. I have explained that ad nauseam, to him and to other hon. Members. Until we see the full details, including the latest demographic data, it is impossible to set an accurate floor that also allows a reasonable gap between it and the ceiling. The hon. Gentleman must understand that. No responsible Government could do otherwise, but we have said repeatedly that there will be floors and ceilings, that there will be protection for authorities, and that there will be greater certainty. That is an indefinite pledge, and we have said that it will be a continuing part of the system. The Government have made a clear commitment that floors and ceilings will continue to be parts of the system.
	The hon. Gentleman complained that the Government had not consulted sufficiently. We consulted before we published the consultation paper. We listened to the consultation, and we are publishing the figures today so that they can be consulted on. The Liberal Democrats have an extraordinary approach: they would love life to be one long continuous consultation—all talk and no action.
	Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said, schools have not lost out. They are gaining substantially, as the settlement gives an extra £200 on average per pupil. It is a travesty for the hon. Gentleman to claim that there are losses.
	The hon. Gentleman also spoke about inadequate funding for social services, even though the settlement contains an overall increase of 5.5 per cent. in PSS resources, and an additional £100 million specifically for bed blocking. Extraordinarily, he omitted to mention that, and even criticised the Government for increasing the number of specific grants. That shows that Liberal Democrat Members have only the most rudimentary understanding of the essentials. Their questions are very wide of the mark.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This statement has run for just over half an hour already. I have to protect the important business that follows, so I ask hon. Members to restrict their comments to one point only. In that way, I shall be able to call as many hon. Members as possible.

Andrew Bennett: I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for the hard work that he and his ministerial team have put into consulting so widely on this matter. I thank him, too, for the extra money that has been made available, and for edging towards fairness. However, he will come before the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions tomorrow morning. Will he be able to convince that Committee, or my constituents in the Bull's Head, that this system will be more easily understood? Will voters in local elections be able to determine whether their local authorities are efficient and well managed, or whether the funding system is still hampering their activities?

Nick Raynsford: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about our consultation, and about the settlements in respect of Stockport. Stockport is to receive a 6.8 per cent. increase, and Tameside one of 8.3 per cent. I am sure that he and his constituents will be extremely pleased about that. My hon. Friend raised the question of whether the system was easy to understand. I have openly accepted that it is complex—but the obverse side of the coin of fairness is complexity. One cannot have both fairness and simplicity: to take account of all the myriad circumstances that have to be considered, it is inevitable that the formula has to be reasonably complex. That is unavoidable if one is to be fair. We could have a simple system, but it would not be fair. I do not think that my hon. Friend would like that.

David Curry: We have a rebadged area cost adjustment, but it may well have more frontiers than its predecessors. We have a new, gothic structure in resource equalisation, which might well prove to be as complex as area cost adjustment. How much of the new structure depends on council tax banding and resources? When the Government allocate money to schools, what account has been taken of the size of school balances? Does the Minister think that school balances should not accumulate beyond certain levels, rather than mounting up and sitting Gollum-like in school treasurers' caves after collection?

Nick Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman asked a series of questions, but did not mention that Craven, one of the two districts that he represents, is to receive an increase of 12.5 per cent. I am sure that he and his constituents will be delighted by that. On the education question, my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards will write to the right hon. Gentleman with a detailed response.

Clive Betts: I want to ask about area cost adjustment. Many of us have argued that my right hon. Friend should take account of the costs that local authorities actually incur, so why has he decided to use the new earnings survey, which reflects costs in the private sector? Why do authorities in the Merseyside area now qualify, whereas those in south Yorkshire and Tyneside do not?

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend raises an interesting question about area cost adjustment. His authority of Sheffield has received an increase of 6.1 per cent. I am sure that he and his constituents will be very pleased about that. We have reformed the area cost adjustment to ensure that it takes a wider view of areas with especially high costs. Parts of west Yorkshire do qualify, but wages costs are inevitably the driver, and it is not possible for every area to benefit. The settlement is an attempt to recognise that there are additional costs associated with delivering services in high-cost areas, and to do so in a much more sensitive way than the old area cost adjustment mechanism. I think that we have made progress on that.

Gary Streeter: Does the Minister agree that when he began his statement, every child in Devon received £200 a year less than the national average for education, and that now that he has sat down, that serious discrimination remains untackled? Why did the Minister not look at that serious problem affecting west country children, instead of just loading council tax rises on to their parents?

Nick Raynsford: Children in Devon and elsewhere in the country have benefited from the very substantial increases in education spending that the Government have made over the past six years, and that we continue to make. On average, there is a £200 increase in the amount per pupil this year, and that significant increase follows previous increases. Obviously, circumstances vary between areas, but Devon county council has received a good above-inflation increase of 4 per cent. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is delighted that the district of West Devon, which he represents, has received an 11 per cent. increase in grant.

Martin Salter: I thank my right hon. Friend for recognising the needs of local authorities that are trying to deliver public services in areas of high housing cost such as Reading, Slough and the Thames valley. An increase of 8.8 per cent. for Reading is welcome, but may I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the need for his Department to give practical help to local authorities desperately trying to boost the amount of affordable and key worker housing in their areas?

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend will be as delighted as we are that Reading is receiving an 8.8 per cent. increase and West Berkshire one of 8 per cent. He may wonder why Reading is getting 8.8 per cent., given that the ceiling is 8 per cent. I should have explained that the capital element is outside the floor and ceiling, which is why some authorities can do even better than the ceiling.
	My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister attaches great importance to affordable housing, and will announce his proposals for community plans to secure effective communities, more provision of affordable housing and the building of decent communities, particularly in areas of need such as the one that my hon. Friend represents.

Roger Gale: In his statement, the Minister said that he had made detailed changes to personal social services and simplified things so that there is now a single formula for residential and domiciliary care. In Kent, that appears to mean that the Government are to take millions of pounds from social services and give it to Richmond house, so that the Department of Health can give it back to primary care trusts, so that they can give it back to social services—with all the administrative costs deducted. At the end of the day, my constituents will have to pay more for their residential care. Why?

Nick Raynsford: Kent has received an above-inflation increase of 3.9 per cent., which is a good settlement by any standards. The Government are particularly concerned about bed blocking, which is a serious problem. It is necessary to do something about it. It does not help if people occupy beds in hospitals unnecessarily because of inefficient provision of alternative accommodation. The arrangements that the Government are putting in place are designed to ease that problem. A substantial grant is available to local authorities to help them meet their obligations. I hope that the system will achieve what I know the hon. Gentleman wants and what we certainly want—a reduction in bed blocking.

Bill O'Brien: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I am glad that the Department is looking at the index of mass deprivation in connection with distributing resources, particularly in education and social services. He referred to the population figures, and the fact that over the past 10 years we have been using the 1991 census figures, with 1 million people incorrectly included in the formula. That means that authorities in SIGOMA—the special interest group of municipal authorities—have been losing out in funding over the past 10 years. I hope that that injustice to SIGOMA has been recognised. Can my right hon. Friend give an indication of how the Government are approaching the funding gap between what local authorities are spending and what they have been allowed?

Nick Raynsford: I know that my hon. Friend has been campaigning assiduously for a long time not only for his own authority but for others in the parts of the country that he cares about passionately, which are represented by the SIGOMA group. I hope that there will be a broad welcome for the settlement, not just in Wakefield, which is receiving a substantial 7.9 per cent increase, but in many other areas represented by SIGOMA. On population change, we have rightly chosen to include latest population figures and put in place safeguards to ensure that authorities' budgets are not unreasonably disrupted by very sharp short-term movements. We want to use the most up-to-date data on that, as well as on the spending needs that underpin the basis of the new settlement.

Desmond Swayne: Is there not something utterly perverse about the Minister claiming that there is £100 million in the budget to prevent bed blocking, when £100 million is precisely the figure that the Department of Health has in its budget for the revenue that it will raise from fining local authorities?

Nick Raynsford: I note that the hon. Gentleman did not make any reference to the 3.7 per cent. increase that his county council has received, which he ought to welcome. Had a Tory Government been in power, his authority would have been facing a cut in its settlement. He should be celebrating the real-terms increases that the Government are delivering. Our concern is to reduce the incidence of bed blocking. It is precisely to encourage and incentivise authorities to do their best to deal with the problem that the arrangements that I have described were put in place.

Louise Ellman: I congratulate the Minister on the continuing increase in local government funding. How can the settlement that he has announced help the Liberal Democrats who run Liverpool city council to address the continuing problems of multiple deprivation and population loss?

Nick Raynsford: I know that my hon. Friend will celebrate the fact that her city has received a 7.3 per cent. increase. We did not hear much about that from the Liberal Democrats, did we? All we heard from them was doom and gloom about how poorly local government is doing. Actually, local government knows that the Government have been helping authorities with real-terms increases in grant, and those increases are going to authorities of all political persuasions. There is no discrimination against a particular category of authority. Liverpool should certainly be pleased about the settlement that it has received.

Angela Watkinson: The Minister has given an assurance that no local authority will have a cut in cash terms. The right hon. Gentleman will also know, because I have mentioned it on several occasions, that the London borough of Havering is one of a small group of authorities throughout the country that has received a perversely low settlement under the old formula. Will the Minister give a further assurance that the London borough of Havering will not receive a cut in overall terms?

Nick Raynsford: Yes, I am pleased to give the hon. Lady that assurance. The Havering settlement involves an increase of 3.5 per cent., which is a good percentage point ahead of inflation, and I hope that she and her constituents will be pleased with it.

Joan Walley: My constituents in Staffordshire Moorlands and Stoke-on-Trent will be asking what extra money there is and whether the allocation is fairer. Will my right hon. Friend tell me how, in respect of neighbourhood renewal funding, it will be possible to make sure that every penny provided will be allocated to the areas of highest deprivation in Stoke-on-Trent?

Nick Raynsford: I am sure that people in my hon. Friend's constituency will be pleased about the settlement. Stoke-on-Trent is receiving a 6.5 per cent. increase and Staffordshire Moorlands district is getting a 12.5 per cent. increase, which is on the ceiling. So there are good results for my hon. Friend's authorities, and I am sure that her constituents will be pleased. We obviously want the considerable resources allocated through neighbourhood renewal to get through to meet real needs, but that should be determined locally, with the local strategic partnership working with the local authority to ensure that there is an identification of projects dealing with real need that can be the focus for that very important funding.

David Heath: For about 15 years we have waited for the day when the old formula system was swept away and Somerset schools got a fair deal equal to that of other parts of the country, and we had enough funding to put policemen on our streets. However, that step change in education has not taken place and there will be fewer, not more, police officers in Somerset as a result of the settlement. Is that fair?

Nick Raynsford: The previous settlement was not introduced 15 years ago but came in more recently, so if the hon. Gentleman has been waiting for a change he has got his figures wrong. That is not altogether surprising, because his curmudgeonly question did not recognise the fact that his local authorities have done extraordinarily well out of this settlement. Somerset county council has received a 6.8 per cent. increase and Mendip one of 12.1 per cent., but the hon. Gentleman did not have the decency to recognise that fact.

Eric Martlew: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Cumbria county council, which is run by the Conservatives in cahoots with the Liberal Democrats, has been saying on its website that the council tax will have to go up because money is being taken away from rural areas? Can he confirm that that is not true? Can he also confirm that Cumbria has a 7 per cent. increase for education—the highest anywhere in the country?

Nick Raynsford: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I confirm, as I have already said in response to an earlier question, that rural shire districts have done well out of the settlement. It is certainly the case that local authorities in his area have benefited. Cumbria county council is receiving a 4.7 per cent. increase, and Carlisle, I am sure that he will be delighted to know, is getting a 9.9 per cent. increase. I know that his constituents will be really pleased with that.

George Young: For next year, the Government have responded to the strong campaign from Members of Parliament representing Hampshire and elsewhere who were concerned about the big increases in next year's rates by raising the floor above their previous proposal—and we welcome that. But does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there are enormous longer term consequences for Hampshire residents from changes in the formula, and that unless he can go further than he has gone so far today, my constituents will simply assume that the pain has been deferred?

Nick Raynsford: I know that the right hon. Gentleman is very familiar with these issues, because he occupied my post in a former Government—but of course when his party was in government he had to stand at the Dispatch Box and justify cuts in allocation, whereas I am pleased to be able to tell him that Hampshire county council is receiving an increase of 3.7 per cent., and that his local authority, Test Valley borough council, gets a 5.8 per cent. increase.
	As I have said, the floors will continue in the system indefinitely. They play an important role in giving certainty to local authorities. The one thing that I cannot do is to predict precisely what the floor level will be—for reasons that I made clear in answer to an earlier question—but the right hon. Gentleman will know that the floors this year are not that dissimilar from last year's levels. It is certainly our intention to ensure that there are no steep changes in the floors year by year. We have to examine the latest detailed figures before we determine the floors in any one year, but our aim is to try to build consistency and give greater certainty to local government.

Iain Coleman: I welcome the Minister's statement, but his decision to set the floor for London local authorities at 3.5 per cent. will come as a grave disappointment to my local authority, Hammersmith and Fulham. My right hon. Friend is well aware that Hammersmith and Fulham is a high-performing authority, but the borough treasurer advises me that it faces a £10 million cuts package and a likely council tax increase in excess of 10 per cent. Can he assure me that if the local authority can show evidence that the settlement gives them peculiar difficulties, he will meet us and listen to those representations?

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend's authority is one of several in central and west London that have been affected by the census data to which I referred earlier. I should have thought that he would welcome the fact that there was a floor to protect authorities from suffering a cut. I should have thought that, rather than being disappointed with a floor of 3.5 per cent., he and his constituents would be pleased that the Government have ensured that there is an above-inflation increase for the authority, which would not otherwise have been the case, because of census information.
	I entirely acknowledge my hon. Friend's point that Hammersmith and Fulham performs well, and we look forward to seeing the result in the comprehensive performance assessment issued by the Audit Commission next week. High-performing authorities have generally proved their ability to work well and prudently with their budgets and to deliver cost-effective services, and I am sure that my hon. Friend's authority will want to do that.

Charles Hendry: How will the Minister allay the concerns of East Sussex county council that a small increase may indeed turn out to be a reduction when we take account of the additional responsibilities that the council will be required by the Government to carry out? Is it not the truth that the figures do not compare like with like, because the services that the council has to cover this year have been extended?

Nick Raynsford: I find it slightly odd that the hon. Gentleman should regard a 3.8 per cent. increase for his authority as a rather poor settlement. He will recall that when his party was in power authorities were getting reductions, not 3.8 per cent. increases. This is a good settlement for the hon. Gentleman and the people of East Sussex and, with the extra margin above inflation that we have granted, it should certainly enable the authority to work prudently and deliver efficient services.

David Chaytor: I welcome the settlement on behalf of my constituents—it is the best that my local authority has ever received. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his work in producing a fairer and simpler system. We can make representations on the new system until 14 January, but does that also apply to the allocation of neighbourhood renewal funds? Does my right hon. Friend accept that the sharp and arbitrary cut-off point for the allocation of neighbourhood renewal funds works against some of the smaller metropolitan districts, and others with high levels of deprivation, but where such deprivation does not extend right across several wards?

Nick Raynsford: I very much appreciate my hon. Friend's extremely kind remarks. I am sure that he and his constituents are delighted at the 8.2 per cent. increase in Bury which is, as he says, the best settlement that it has ever received. I am delighted for him.The Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women has responsibility for neighbourhood renewal and is holding further consultations about the formulae used to assess eligibility. I cannot promise my hon. Friend more than that, but I am sure that if he talks to my hon. Friend she will be more than receptive to any representations that he would like to make.

Keith Simpson: During the past few months, the Minister has gone out of his way to consult Members of Parliament and others. He knows that, in an Adjournment debate, I raised the local government finance formula for Norfolk. The Minister will reply now by giving me the headline figures for Norfolk and—in headline terms—they will look reasonably good. However, leaving that aside—as the Prime Minister would say—can the Minister explain to Norfolk taxpayers how that headline figure will equate to all the extra costs that have been loaded on to Norfolk county council during the past two or three years? Next year national insurance will cost us about £600,000. Most of any increase will be taken away, according to his own Government's figures. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to meet me and a delegation of MPs from Norfolk to discuss the formula shortly?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will be aware from correspondence in the local press that there has been a lot of speculation in Norfolk about alleged cuts as a result of the settlement—[Hon. Members: XScaremongering".] I had to write to point out that it was indeed scaremongering. I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that Norfolk county council receives an increase of 6.3 per cent., that Breckland district council receives an increase of 12.7 per cent., and that Broadland district council receives an increase of 12.5 per cent. I should be happy to receive a delegation of the hon. Gentleman and other Members—they will be able to tell me how they intend to spend the extra money that we are giving them.

David Kidney: Conservative and Labour Staffordshire Members who are absent are hosting a lunch for the distinguished and much respected county clerk, Mr. Bernard Price, who is retiring next year. I know that those Members would have liked to be in the Chamber, especially my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack).
	May I add my words of praise to the Minister personally for the great amount of time that he has taken over the consultation for the Green Paper and in holding seminars for Members? Will he confirm that responses from residents in the authorities of the F40 group were prominent among those to both the Green Paper and the consultation? Will he explain whether the focus on the basic allowance approach benefits F40 authorities? It certainly appears that Staffordshire will benefit, so does he agree that the new focus will see off the scaremongers who said that the new system would be no better for Staffordshire than the old one?

Nick Raynsford: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about the consultation and the efforts that we made to ensure that everyone was as familiar as possible with the way in which we were approaching the process. I am sure that he is delighted with the results for his authority: Staffordshire county council receives an increase of 7.1 per cent. and South Staffordshire district council receives an increase of 13 per cent. Those results are extremely good.
	My hon. Friend has been an assiduous campaigner on behalf of the F40 group, and the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) met delegations from F40 led by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford on several occasions during the consultation process. He will be pleased to know that overall, the F40 authorities receive an increase of 6.8 per cent.

Paul Burstow: I thank the Minister for meeting a delegation from the London borough of Sutton during the consultation on the formula review, which appears to have been helpful as regards today's settlement. However, will the Minister tell us whether the scaling-back figures are included in the exemplifications that have been provided for Members? If not, what does that imply for my local authority?
	Can the Minister tell us how the £100 million allocated to be paid back to the NHS—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I asked for one question only.

Nick Raynsford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging the attention that we gave to his representations and I am sure that he is as delighted as his constituents will be that Sutton has received 7 per cent., a good increase. He asked about the scaling factor; he will know that that was applied before these figures were announced. There is no scaling back on the figures announced. It is the process involved in determining the floors and ceilings to ensure that there is a zero sum process to support the floors through both the ceiling and the scaling factor.

Karen Buck: My right hon. Friend will be aware that London local authorities entered into this process with some scepticism and there will be many, such as Brent and Tower Hamlets, that are pleased with a settlement that reflects their high costs and levels of deprivation. My authorities, the Conservative boroughs of Westminster and of Kensington and Chelsea, have spent recent months advising their residents that they can expect cuts of up to £40 million. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that they will receive increases of between £4 million and £7 million, and that the cuts that Westminster proposes—such as the £250,000 play charges for the poorest parents in the borough—are wholly unnecessary?

Nick Raynsford: There is no justification for scaremongering—no more in Kensington and Westminster than in other parts of the country. We have always said that we were seeking a fair settlement and that we would ensure that no council faced losses. As we have put a floor in place, Kensington and Chelsea, and Westminster, are protected from the consequences of the census data that showed a lower population than had been previously expected. Those factors apply in those authorities as well as in the neighbouring authority of Hammersmith and Fulham, to which I have referred. I am sure that my hon. Friend and her local residents will be relieved that we have a floor in place; otherwise, there would have been a serious consequence from the adoption of the most up-to-date census data.

Angela Browning: I seek a direct answer to my question, not a pre-prepared one. Is it still the Minister's intention to sequestrate the capital receipts of debt-free councils and redistribute them, such as the receipts of East Devon district council in my constituency, which has benefited the council taxpayer by keeping taxes low and providing good services and is now to be penalised for that good stewardship? It is, of course, a Conservative-controlled council.

Nick Raynsford: I am sorry that the hon. Lady has not recognised the extremely generous settlement that we have given to her authority. Not surprisingly, she has not mentioned that Mid Devon will get an increase of 12.5 per cent. We have always taken account of the availability of capital receipts on the principle that it is right that when resources that have been paid for by central Government—housing stock, predominantly—are realised through sale, there should be a contribution to the wider national housing scene. That has always been the case. We are proposing changes relating to debt-free authorities that, as a result of current arrangements, would not be subject to that regime and would get an unfair advantage if that were not changed. That will be part of the legislation going through the House, which the hon. Lady will be able to debate in due course.

Frank Field: May I thank my right hon. Friend for the statement, and for the way in which he involved people in the long consultation process? Birkenhead has one area with the highest proportion of poor children anywhere in the country. What increase in taxpayers' resources will be going to Wirral council to help provide better services to some of the poorest people in the country?

Nick Raynsford: I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind words. I am sure that he will be delighted that Wirral will receive an increase of 7.7 per cent., which is equivalent to £18.4 million of additional grant. In addition, the authority will be receiving £5 million in neighbourhood renewal funding. These are substantial increases being made available to meet the needs of his deprived community, and I am sure that he will welcome that.

Michael Portillo: Will the Minister recognise that the floor, though welcome, is an insufficient fix to meet the dismaying problem of the very poor response rate to the census, particularly in inner London boroughs? Is it not plausible that part of the problem is the fact that asylum seekers have been given insufficient help in filling out their forms? As at least some of the newcomers from Sangatte will probably find their way to inner London, will the Minister say what plans he has to make sure that local authorities are properly compensated for the costs that they face, at least in the short term?

Nick Raynsford: Last year the right hon. Gentleman was complaining about the ceiling for Kensington and Chelsea. Had we taken on board his representations that the ceiling was unfair, there would have been no finance for the floor, from which his authority is a beneficiary this year. The census issue is a complex and serious one, and I know that a number of authorities that have seen a substantial reduction in their population in the latest census data compared with what was anticipated are naturally concerned. However, the floor provides protection for those authorities, as I acknowledged in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck). I say the same to the right hon. Gentleman. As far as asylum seekers are concerned, the Government are keen to ensure that there is a robust regime in place to handle our responsibilities and to ensure that there is effective help for authorities that have to meet additional costs because of the presence of asylum seekers in their area.

David Clelland: My right hon. Friend should be congratulated on finally getting rid of the anomalous and unfair standard spending assessment system; that will be widely welcomed. He has said that one of the factors that he takes into account is the relative ability of authorities to raise council tax. Does he agree that many authorities in the south of England that benefited from the fiddling of the former Government have low council tax bases, and that their ability to raise funds from council taxes is far greater than authorities such as—to pluck a couple out of the air—Newcastle upon Tyne and Gateshead? Does the settlement fully reflect those differences and, if not, why not?

Nick Raynsford: I am pleased that my hon. Friend acknowledges the progress that we are making in terms of grants to local government, and in eliminating some of the anomalies and unfairness inherited from the previous Government. I believe that the settlement announced today is good news for both Newcastle upon Tyne and Gateshead, both of which have received significant increases. Above all, my hon. Friend will be pleased that there is in place a framework that acknowledges the needs of more deprived communities. Deprivation is taken into account and the resource equalisation process helps authorities with high needs but a low council tax base. That is an important element in our new structure.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We must now proceed.

Points of Order

Angela Browning: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order, of which I have given Mr. Speaker notice. I seek your help, because this is the second time that I have had to ask for assistance in obtaining a reply to correspondence that I have sent to the Department of Health. I wrote on behalf of a general practitioner in my constituency, Dr. Stephenson, on 21 June, and despite tabling a named-day question that was due for answer on 25 November, I have been unable to obtain a response from the Department. May I ask for your support in ensuring that the Department responds more efficiently to requests for information from Members of Parliament?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I suggest that the hon. Lady place that information before the Select Committee on Public Administration.

Nick Hawkins: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I recognise the difficulties that the Chair always has on statements such as the one that we have just had, in which so many Members wish to speak. As the only Surrey Member of Parliament who was standing, I was, unfortunately, unable to intervene to protest at the inadequacies of the local government settlement for my area. Can you advise me how I might approach the difficulty that we have when the Minister is armed in advance with the figures for the settlement and the percentages? We cannot get those figures unless we leave the Chamber at a time when we are seeking to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair. The Minister was insufferably smug in responding to every Opposition question with figures in front him that we did not have, and which we could not get unless we left the Chamber. If we did so, we would not have been able to catch your eye. Can you advise us whether it might be possible, with future statements on local government finance, for the Minister to release the figures to all Members of Parliament half an hour before the statement starts, so that we can see the inadequacies of the Government's redirection of funding to their friends in the north before we come into the Chamber?

Patrick McLoughlin: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I realise that a statement of that importance and magnitude has a dramatic impact on the constituencies of all hon. Members, but the occupant of the Chair ought to have in mind the necessity to call people from the counties. No Derbyshire Member was called, although three—the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) and myself—were attempting to speak on an issue that has been great importance for a number of years. I do not think that a Member was called from the east midlands, which has been left out on area cost adjustment. Mr. Speaker told us the other day that he would allow statements that he regarded as important to run on. No statement is more important for all our constituents than the one that has been made today.

Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yes, I am sorry that I was not called, but I do not complain. All I will say now is that Bolsover hit the ceiling—12.5 per cent.

Mark Francois: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did not notice many Members from Essex being called during the statement, either. We are one of the largest counties in the country. As 75 per cent. of all the county council's money comes from central Government, this issue is vital to 1.5 million people. May I reiterate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), that in future when we have a statement on matters as technical as local government finance, it would be helpful if we could at least be given 30 minutes to look through the papers before we have to respond to what the Minister says?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have considerable sympathy with the many hon. Members who were rising in their places, but whom I was not able to call. It is exceedingly difficult, and those who occupy the Chair try their best, bearing in mind the fact that, of course, some hon. Members have been called during earlier statements on local government finance. I was very aware that hon. Members were leaving the Chamber—I assume, to go to the Vote Office—and returning with bundles of papers, and in no way does that mean that the occupant of the Chair is unlikely to call them during such a statement.

BILL PRESENTED

Income Tax (Earnings And Pensions)

Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by Mr. Secretary Smith, Mr. Paul Boateng, Dawn Primarolo, Ruth Kelly and John Healey, presented a Bill to restate, with minor changes, certain enactments relating to income tax on employment income, pension income and social security income; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday next, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed. [Bill 13].

ESTIMATES DAY
	 — 
	[1st Allotted Day]
	 — 
	VOTE ON ACCOUNT: 2003–04
	 — 
	Government Drugs Policy

[Relevant documents: The Third Report from the Home Affairs Committee, Session 2001–02, on The Government's Drugs Policy: Is it Working? (House of Commons Paper No. 318-I); the Government's reply thereto (Cm. 5573); and the Home Office's Annual Report 2001–02 (Cm. 5406).]
	Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Resolution [26 November],
	That resources, not exceeding £4,651,171,000, be authorised, on account, for use during the year ending on 31st March 2004, and that a sum, not exceeding £4,597,261,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for the year ending on 31st March 2004, for expenditure by the Home Office.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: I advise the House that the 15-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches comes into operation when the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) finishes his speech.

Chris Mullin: That makes a pleasant change, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	May I start by welcoming the Government's new drugs strategy, which was published recently? I am glad to see that it now contains some more realistic targets, with one notable exception: the suggestion that opium production in Afghanistan can be reduced by 70 per cent. in five years and entirely eliminated in 10 years. I think that that is what Sir Humphrey would call Xa brave decision, Minister".

Nick Hawkins: Courageous.

Chris Mullin: At least the Minister has the comfort of knowing that, when the day of reckoning comes, he is unlikely to be still in the post that he now occupies.
	I particularly welcome the increased emphasis on harm minimisation, the commitment to increased resources for treatment and to making heroin available on prescription to chaotic users. I am grateful to the Home Secretary for having taken seriously the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. I hope that he will give further thought to our proposals regarding safe injecting houses.
	I have been a member of the Home Affairs Committee for eight of the past 10 years, and I think I can say that our inquiry into drugs policy was one of the most detailed that we have conducted during that time. I would also like to think that, in due course, our report may prove to be one of the most influential, but the jury is still out on that. We held 11 oral evidence sessions with 45 witnesses, including experts from the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland and, besides their evidence, we also took into account over 200 written submissions.
	As we quickly discovered, there is no one true path. On the contrary, there is an absolute difference of opinion among experts of every relevant profession—doctors, police and social workers. Opinions, all advanced with equal passion, range from those that argue that prohibition has failed and therefore should be abandoned to those that argue that because all drugs are harmful—and they are—existing bans and proscriptions should be maintained or, indeed, tightened. In between, there are many shades of grey.
	May I thank all those, from whatever side of the argument, who helped to guide us through that minefield? In particular, I thank Ruth Runciman, who provided us with valuable help and advice at an early stage in our inquiry and whose report for the Police Foundation on the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is essential reading for serious students of drugs policy and proved extremely helpful to us during our deliberations.
	Perhaps it would be helpful if, at the outset, I were to place on record a few basic facts about drug abuse in this country. First, all illegal drugs and most legal ones are to a greater or lesser extent harmful. That message cannot be repeated too often. However, it is a mistake to pretend that all drugs are equally harmful; they are not, and most young people know that, even if we do not.
	Secondly, legal drugs, such as alcohol and tobacco, are responsible for far greater damage to individuals and to the social fabric in general than illegal ones. To take only the most obvious example, about 120,000 people a year die from tobacco-related diseases compared with about 1,600 who die each year from illegal drug abuse. In addition, an unknown number of injecting drug users die prematurely from HIV and hepatitis C.
	Thirdly, although a substantial number—about half—of our young people dabble in drugs at some stage in their lives, they usually use so-called soft drugs, and happily most of them soon grow out of it. So more than 2 million young people in any year use drugs, usually cannabis or ecstasy. Fourthly, there are about 250,000 so-called problematic drug users in this country—the highest level in Europe—and they are responsible for about half of all acquisitive crime in this country.
	Heroin users are by far and away the biggest problem. They destroy not only their lives, but those of their families and their communities. Despite the best efforts of police and customs, the number of heroin addicts in this country has risen remorselessly over the past 30 years. In 1970, there were only about 1,000; today there are around 200,000. Let no one argue that our drugs policy over the past 30 years has been such an overwhelming success that all we need to do is carry on down the same old road.
	Most of the remaining 50,000 problematic drug users are addicted to crack cocaine. Unlike heroin, which dumbs down people, crack can lead to violent and unpredictable behaviour and is responsible for a growing amount of gang warfare in London and elsewhere.
	Once those basic facts have been digested, certain conclusions are inescapable. First, a policy based upon retribution alone will not work. Given, as I said, that more than 2 million young people dabble with illegal drugs in any year, it is obvious that they cannot all be locked up or even fined. In any case, what is the point of criminalising tens of thousands of young people who are in every other respect law abiding, most of whom are unlikely to inflict lasting damage on themselves or anyone else—although some do— and who will grow out of it anyway in due course?

Jon Owen Jones: I wonder whether my hon. Friend watched television last night and saw a remarkable young man, destined for great things—perhaps he will be Prime Minister one day—Master Will Straw. Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that, in the opinion of some hon. Members, the best thing for Master Will Straw, as a supplier of what will now become a category C drug, would be for him to spend a very long period in jail? What good would that do?

Chris Mullin: As I think my hon. Friend wants me to say, it would do no good at all. As I recall, however, Will Straw's father took the appropriate action at the time, which, I hope, put him on the straight and narrow.
	Secondly, law enforcers should overwhelmingly target those who deal in drugs for profit, especially those that cause the most harm—heroin and crack cocaine.
	The third inescapable conclusion is that drug addiction is overwhelmingly a health problem and should be treated as such. It is now widely recognised in this country and others that harm minimisation is a thread that should run through all policy on drug abusers, concentrating in particular on those who are doing the most damage to themselves and to society. Overwhelmingly, that means heroin users. The prize for society as a whole is large. If we can reduce the number of heroin users, we will reduce the amount of burgling and mugging by addicts seeking to fund a habit. Research conducted for the Home Office shows that for every £1 spent on treatment, about £3 is saved in costs to the criminal justice system.

Simon Hughes: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us his view or that of his Committee on whether the experiment in Lambeth produced the right response from the authorities—concentrating on the hard end and not spending time and effort on soft drugs? Does he accept the view of the Home Office research study, which shows that cannabis, on the balance of the evidence, is not a gateway drug, and that little evidence exists to suggest that somebody who starts on cannabis moves automatically or naturally from there to other more serious drugs?

Chris Mullin: I have not read the research to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I agree that cannabis is not necessarily a gateway to other harder drugs; it is in some cases, but cigarettes are just as likely—in some cases, more likely—to lead to harder drugs. With regard to the Lambeth experiment, I have no detailed knowledge of it, except to say that one of the effects of conducting such an experiment in isolation in one borough is to pull in so-called drug tourists, which somewhat skewed the way in which the experiment was viewed. It must be right, however, to focus remorselessly on those who deal in the hardest drugs and those that cause the most damage to society as a whole.
	My fourth inescapable conclusion is that harm minimisation means that we need to be realistic about the relative harm caused by different types of drugs. At present, the law is an ass. Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, ecstasy is classified alongside heroin and crack cocaine as a class A drug, supply of which attracts a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, and possession of which attracts a maximum sentence of seven years. Furthermore, existing law makes no distinction between dealing for profit and so-called social supply: a group of young people sharing among themselves. The Select Committee concluded that the law should recognise such a distinction. Purely on the basis of the science, we also recommended—as did the Police Foundation previously—that ecstasy should be reclassified from class A to class B, for which, incidentally, substantial penalties are still available. I am sorry that the Home Secretary did not take that up.

Pete Wishart: I wholly agree with the Home Affairs Committee's conclusion that it is absurd for ecstasy to be grouped with heroin and cocaine, because that diminishes the arguments against heroin and cocaine. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that it should not be included in class B with amphetamines and barbiturates? Did the Home Affairs Committee consider broadening the bands and having wider categories for all illegal drugs?

Chris Mullin: What the hon. Gentleman says sounds as if it makes sense, but I would want to study the matter further before venturing a firm opinion. I am in no doubt, however, that drugs need to be categorised according to their degree of harmfulness. After that, it becomes a scientific issue. On ecstasy and perhaps one or two other drugs, the science is clear.
	The logic that applies to ecstasy applies to cannabis, too. The Committee therefore welcomes the Home Secretary's proposal to reclassify cannabis from class B to class C. He has since said that he proposes to extend police powers of arrest not just to cannabis users but to all other category C drugs. At first glance, that seems to be a step backwards rather than forwards, and I should be grateful if the Minister would address that point when he replies.
	A policy of harm minimisation requires realistic, honest education targeted on those at most risk. It should address the harmful effects of all drugs, including alcohol and cigarettes. On illegal drugs, it should focus on those that are most harmful, which, in most cases, means heroin. The message needs to be simple and unambiguous: heroin is a loser's drug. That message should be directed at communities with the highest incidence of heroin abuse, and at the most vulnerable young people, who are often underachievers and school drop-outs, and those from communities in which work for the unskilled has collapsed, as it has in some of the ex-pit villages of Nottinghamshire, south Yorkshire and County Durham. In that respect, I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) in highlighting the problems in his area. Above all, the education message should be delivered by people with street cred—not by men in suits—and ideally by recovered addicts.
	In conclusion, I should mention that some people believe that we ought to go further. We took a good deal of evidence on that. Some of those who gave evidence to us argued that we should decriminalise all drug use, concentrate law enforcement entirely on dealing, and, for users, concentrate only on education and harm minimisation. That is more or less what has already happened in countries such as Portugal. We rejected decriminalisation because, apart from the obvious political realities, we thought that it would send the wrong message to the 50 per cent. of young people who at no time in their lives touch illegal drugs, many of whom, according to research, are deterred precisely because drug taking is illegal, and, of course, because they care about the effects on their health. Nevertheless, we should study carefully what is happening in Portugal and elsewhere to see what we might learn from it.
	Others argue that all currently illegal drugs should be legalised and regulated in the way that cigarettes are. Some surprising and serious people hold that view, including a former chief constable, a former British ambassador to Colombia who had first-hand experience of the devastating impact of the American-sponsored war on drugs in that country, and Mr. Fulton Gillespie, a most impressive witness, whose son had died of a heroin overdose, and who believed that his son would still be alive today if heroin were legalised and regulated. Their arguments were that prohibition has failed, that most of those who have been killed by heroin died because it had been adulterated by criminals or because they had taken the wrong dosage, and that we need to get the trade out of the hands of criminals.
	All those arguments have a certain logic. We rejected them because they ask us to gamble gains that are at best theoretical against the inevitability of a significant increase in the number of users, especially among the very young. The one question that the legalisers could not answer satisfactorily was what they would do about crack cocaine, which as I have said, leads to violent and unpredictable behaviour. Those arguments will not go away. We should be under no illusion: if existing policies fail to stem the tide of heroin—past policies have utterly failed, as the street price of heroin, although stable now, is as low as it has ever been—new ones will have to be tried. Some old arguments will have to be revisited and some old prejudices set aside in favour of what works.
	For now, however, the path is clear. Our policy must be based on three clear pillars: prevention, treatment and harm reduction. That is what our report recommends, and I am glad to see that that is the direction in which the Government are moving.

Nick Hawkins: A number of different issues need to be considered in relation to the Government's drug policy. I want to start, however, with what has been noticed and commented on widely this week in the media. We have seen headlines such as XLabour drops key target on drugs". The accompanying article said:
	XMore than four years into a 10-year strategy to tackle drug misuse the Government yesterday conceded that it was too ambitious. Ministers set out an 'updated' strategy that abandoned almost all of the original targets. The strategy then went on to outline a new national action plan."
	Anyone who has examined in detail what the Government promised to do when they appointed the drugs tsar, Keith Hellawell—with the huge fanfares that everyone who follows the issue will recall—will recognise what has happened. The Government have conceded that everything that they were trying to do and that they told everyone that they were going to do has failed.
	I do not blame the Minister personally. I know that he works extremely hard and is very diligent. However, I urge everyone who follows our proceedings to note that the Government have abandoned the targets and are starting again only a few years after they announced with such a fanfare what they would do. They must therefore face serious criticism.

Paul Flynn: rose—

Jon Owen Jones: rose—

Nick Hawkins: I will give way much later to the arch-legalisers from south Wales. We have crossed swords many times and I have told them before that I will never agree with their views about legalisation. I may give way to them much later on one or two points of detail. I shall start by considering what the Government are doing before I deal with the crackpots on the Labour Back Benches.
	The Government suggested that Keith Hellawell would be the answer to the nation's drugs problems. When I saw Mr. Hellawell reacting on television to questions about the Government's new announcement, he described it as all spin to cover up failure. That is the Government's much-heralded drugs tsar talking. His words should be taken seriously.
	Fortunately, police forces and media commentators still listen to Mr. Hellawell. He is still the authority—and is treated as such—that Ministers from the then Home Secretary downwards praised so highly when they appointed him. We had a change of Home Secretary and we all know that the new Home Secretary fell out with the drugs tsar. As with so many much-trumpeted Labour appointments, the drugs tsar paid the penalty for falling out with the new Home Secretary. The Government's failure has been made clear by their drugs tsar.
	We have seen other descriptions in the media of what the Government are now saying will be their revised targets. We have seen them described as Xtough love" and as the Xnational heroin service". Addicts will be given free drugs even though that policy has failed before. Press commentators are right to warn all law-abiding members of society about the dangers of drugs and about the dangers of weasel words.
	Two of the weasel words that the Government repeat constantly refer to so-called Xharm minimisation". I have considered these matters for four years as a member of the Opposition Front-Bench team, and for many years before that, including those years when I prosecuted and defended drugs cases in some of the most deprived areas of the east and west midlands. I have seen the way in which weasel words are used. Harm minimisation is often treated by campaigners as code for giving up and as code for legalisation. We must start using clear facts in the terminology that we use.
	I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) who opened this important debate, and to the work that his Select Committee has done. As he rightly said, it produced an extremely thorough and detailed piece of work. All parties and those outside the House have benefited hugely from the detail of that investigation and from the evidence that the Committee collected. However, those of us on the Opposition Front Bench do not have to agree with all the Committee's conclusions, and I know that the hon. Gentleman, who takes these matters as seriously as I do, recognises that fact. He also recognises that I and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), the shadow Home Secretary, have repeatedly said that we welcome what the Home Affairs Committee did in investigating the matter so thoroughly. There are conclusions, such as the fact that certain drugs should remain class A, with which we entirely agree.

David Cameron: rose—

Nick Hawkins: We also agree, as the hon. Member for Sunderland, South and the Minister know, that clear emphasis should be placed on intensive rehabilitation. Like the Home Affairs Committee, we have called for a huge increase in the amount of rehabilitation available, particularly for those addicted to class A drugs.

John Mann: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Hawkins: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman after I have given way to my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron). However, I should pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who is a relatively new Member of the House. He has done much valuable work that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset has also publicly praised.
	We want any changes to the law or to the Government's targets to be evidence based. I know that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South and his Select Committee would be clear in saying that there should not be a rush to judgment on such important matters.

David Cameron: Does my hon. Friend not think that there is some cause for celebration? Following the Select Committee report, which puts a great emphasis on treatment, both sides of the House are emphasising treatment. The Government are doing that through the ditching of their many targets, and we are doing so through the talk of mandatory treatment. Is that not something to celebrate as we go ahead to deal with this difficult problem?

Nick Hawkins: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He is a member of the Select Committee that produced this valuable report. We need to ensure that we have real treatment. In answers given to me and to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset at recent Home Office questions, the Government have used the wholly misleading figure of 118,000 people in contact with treatment agencies. The Chairman of the Select Committee and I know perfectly well—evidence to the Select Committee makes it clear—that being in contact with a treatment agency is vastly different from receiving the intensive rehabilitation that my hon. Friend the Member for Witney, many other members of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset and I are talking about. We mean real intensive rehabilitation for many more people.

John Mann: I am a little confused, because the Conservative party website says that the Government's treatment plans
	Xseem to echo our own proposals".
	Precisely how much residential rehabilitation does the hon. Gentleman think should be provided? The Leader of the Opposition suggested that it should be available for everybody and the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) suggested, in response to me, that it should be provided to many. How many residential rehabilitation places does the hon. Gentleman think should be provided?

Nick Hawkins: We have made it clear from the Dispatch Box—in particular, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset has done this—that, as a start, an incoming Conservative Administration would increase tenfold the number of real intensive rehabilitation places from whatever figure is inherited at that time. A tenfold increase is an exponential increase, and that is what is needed. In the end, any Government addressing the problem of people seriously addicted to class A drugs will have to ensure that they work towards intensive rehabilitation being available to everyone who needs it.

John Mann: I have a copy of the Conservative implementation paper on home affairs, and it specifies in the small print that the 10 per cent. relates only to juvenile class A drug addicts. That is obviously a much smaller figure than the one that the hon. Gentleman quoted. He mentioned a 10 per cent. increase—I am sorry, a tenfold increase—on the current figure, but the small print to the document states:
	XWe have assumed that half the in-patient places are for young people."
	It therefore assumes a fivefold increase. I seek clarification. Are we talking about a fivefold or tenfold increase? Is the document or the hon. Gentleman right?

Nick Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman became confused between 10 per cent. and tenfold in his second intervention. We have said tenfold, and we have also said—this is common ground with the Minister—that there needs to be a particular focus on young adults because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset has put it, they are joining the conveyor belt to crime. It is most important that the number of those addicted to hard drugs should not continue to increase, because they are so disproportionately involved in acquisitive crime to fund their drug habit.
	Another issue on which the Government need to do much more is that of drug drivers. The Minister knows that I have been pursuing that for some time. Last week I was fortunate to be to invited Hampshire constabulary to speak at the launch of their Christmas and new year campaign against both drink drivers and drug drivers. They had seen my speeches on drug drivers, our work on getting information from all police forces in England, Scotland and Wales and the work by my researchers, Rhiannon Sadler and Anarkali Moonesinghe, on getting information from coroners. All the police forces and coroners said that insufficient information was collected nationally about the number of deaths and serious injuries that are caused by those who drive when addicted to drugs.
	Sometimes it is a matter of trying to disentangle whether someone has been drinking and taking drugs. We have at last acquired a clear picture, which is, I am afraid, that the Government do not have enough information. There is also a clear lack of joined-up government. Whereas the old Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions had acquired a well written report from the Transport and Road Research Laboratory at Crowthorne, just up the road from my constituency, on the huge increase in the number of fatal and non-fatal accidents caused by drivers under the influence of drugs, the Home Office did not use that information as an impetus to start collecting figures. Almost every coroner who responded to my office said, XWe need more information. It has to be collected centrally. Only the Home Office can do it."
	Some police forces, such as Northamptonshire and Strathclyde, are involved in pioneering work and have started their own projects. Hampshire police were launching their new Christmas and new year campaign called XAre you FIT to drive?" FIT is an acronym and refers to the test that the Hampshire police will use, which they demonstrated to me and the media. What was most moving about the launch at the Hampshire county constabulary headquarters at Netley last week was the contribution by the victim of a drug addicted driver. She had made a remarkable recovery thanks to her courage and her family's support and was prepared to appear before the media—television, radio and the press—to say what had happened to her when she was unwise enough to get into a car driven by someone who was under the influence of drugs. The driver had also had vastly insufficient sleep, having been up for days at the Glastonbury rock music festival. As a result, people in the accident were killed.
	The young lady who spoke at the launch was lucky enough to survive and I was impressed by the courage she displayed by standing up and saying, XI want to persuade other people not to have anything to do with drug drivers." That is fine in terms of influencing passengers of drug drivers, but what about those entirely innocent victims who are driving lawfully along a road and are hit head on by a drug abusing driver? They have no opportunity to avoid the problem but are nevertheless the casualties of it.
	The Government have presided over a huge increase in drugs use, as confirmed by their figures. It is clear that something is going wrong. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South referred to a consistent failure of policy since the second world war. I agree that the figures speak for themselves. Drug use has increased tremendously over those years. In recent years, however, it is not so much a case of things being tried and found wanting, but of things being found difficult and not tried properly. That is where I part company with the hon. Gentleman and his Committee's report.
	When the hon. Gentleman talks about the reclassification of ecstasy, he should ask the parents of the late Leah Betts and the relatives of the other victims of ecstasy what they think.

Chris Mullin: I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman took the subject seriously. I think I made it clear that the arguments about ecstasy—whether one thinks it a good or a bad thing—are based purely on the science. We have taken the advice of scientists on which category it should fall into. Were it to be reclassified into class B, the penalties available would still be great and would leave those who use it in no doubt about society's disapproval.

Nick Hawkins: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I take the issue seriously. We will have to beg to differ. Unfortunately, reclassification sends the wrong signals. I think he will agree with me on one thing at least. When we talk about sentences available, we are, of course, referring to maximum sentences. He will appreciate that my practical experience in the courts is that people rarely get the maximum sentence. We are dealing with signals that the Government have sent.

Simon Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Home Affairs Committee recommendation is worthy of support because we need to ensure that the relative harm is understood? The evidence shows that heroin and crack cocaine are the big killers. They are the nasties. Ecstasy occasionally kills people. Cannabis has killed no one. The logic of the Committee's recommendation and the logic of the view taken by the Liberal Democrats, which I hope will eventually percolate through to the Conservative Benches, is that it is nonsense for ecstasy to be in the same league as heroin and crack cocaine, or for cannabis to be in the same league as either.

Nick Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman knows that I do not agree with him. The signals that we send to young people are important. I have just talked about those who suffer death or serious injury as a result of drug induced driving. He says that cannabis has killed no one, but there are many cases in which the person responsible for a fatal accident committed the driving offence as a result of the use of cannabis alone.

David Cameron: I had to think long and hard about the problem when I served on the Select Committee. Does my hon. Friend accept that the signals argument goes both ways? What signal does it send to young people that ecstasy is in the same class as heroin and cocaine?

Nick Hawkins: My answer is straightforward: it sends a valuable signal. I have no desire for our opposition, which is based on the tragic experience of people like Leah Betts' parents, to change. We do not want to send out the signal that heroin is less serious now.
	The Government have to take notice of what the respected schools health education unit has discovered as a result of the Government's signals. The Minister will be aware of the media surveys that show that almost every young person who does not follow politics or take note of the details of what we say in the House thinks that cannabis is legal. They have seen the general message. The figures from the unit confirm a huge jump in the use of cannabis.
	The number of boys in their early teens who smoke cannabis has rocketed in just two years since the Government started to give every young person the impression that cannabis is legal. Some 29 per cent. of those aged 14 and 15 said last year that they had tried the drug compared with only 19 per cent. who admitted using it in 1999. A large-scale research project found that school children are increasingly likely to believe that cannabis is safe and has no down sides. The 10 per cent. jump in young drug users reversed a previous decline in drug taking by school children which was reported by the same research group in the second half of the 1990s. That was when Conservative Ministers were trying to clamp down hard on crime in general. Indeed, crime had dropped for the first time since the second world war as a result of tough anti-crime policies.
	The Government's mistaken signals have reversed that. There has been a huge increase in crime, much of it drug related. The Prime Minister said, in his much vaunted soundbite, that he would be Xtough on crime, tough on the causes of crime", but the biggest single cause of crime is the use of drugs. The greatest single cause of crime stems from those who are addicted to drugs and are funding their drug habit by acquisitive crime. The Government have not been tough on the causes of crime.
	Nearly 16,000 pupils were asked to complete questionnaires at 334 schools.

Jon Owen Jones: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We were told at the beginning of the debate that there was a 15-minute limit on speeches following the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). It seems that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) is being given a great degree of leniency.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) is not being given any degree of leniency. The 15-minute limit applies only to Back-Bench Members. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) was exempted from the limit because he is the Chair of the Select Committee.

Nick Hawkins: You will confirm, of course, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I had confirmed with you in the Chair what the position was before I rose.
	As I have said, nearly 16,000 pupils were asked to complete questionnaires at 334 schools. The responses showed a similar boom in girls using cannabis. In 1999, 18 per cent. of girls aged 14 and 15 had smoked cannabis. However, last year the figure was 25 per cent. The survey covered 15,881 pupils aged between 10 and 15. The findings are severely at variance with what was said by the Prime Minister and other Ministers when they first came to office, proclaiming their commitment to the so-called war on drugs. Instead, the figures have gone dramatically in the wrong direction.

Bridget Prentice: I hoped to bring the hon. Gentleman out of his fantasy world into the world of reality. He talks about the majority of crime being committed by drug users and refers to it as acquisitive crime. Yes, that is true. However, the Committee did not discover that those who took ecstasy were among that group. The hon. Gentleman must think seriously about the findings set out in the report and about the scientific evidence. He must think again about placing ecstasy in the same class as heroine and crack cocaine. Ecstasy is qualitatively different.

Nick Hawkins: I entirely disagree with the hon. Lady. She talks about science, and I shall quote once again from one of the reports on the recent figures in the recent survey. It states:
	XThe terrible irony is that all the while the deceptive message that cannabis is safe has been taking hold among school children because of the misguided approach of Whitehall"—
	that is a reference to Labour Ministers—
	Xand the police. The evidence points increasingly in the opposite direction. Last week"—
	the hon. Lady is talking about science—
	Xthree respected scientific studies linked cannabis with the huge increase in the amount of depression and schizophrenia."
	Another scientific study showed that it is five times more likely to cause cancer than tobacco. The physical and mental health of an entire generation of youngsters is being put at risk because of the Government's willingness to accept the drugs agenda of a small liberal metropolitan elite.

Bob Ainsworth: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us what his party's policy is on the classification of cannabis.

Nick Hawkins: The Minister heard me say earlier—I have said exactly the same to him in Committee—that when we come to office, any changes that we make will be evidence based. We believe, unlike the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice), apparently, in examining the science. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset has always said, as has my right hon. Friend the leader of the Opposition, that we will try to do everything on the basis of evidence, and not on the basis of the pro-legalisation fantasies that are shared by a number of Labour Back-Benchers.
	I recognise that the Minister takes these issues seriously. That being so, he needs to examine the experience that we have had in visiting intensive rehabilitation clinics in Sweden, where they have managed to create a social consensus that illegal drugs are so damaging to society that all the forces in society need to work together to try to take illegal drugs out of the system. There is a social consensus in which teachers and head teachers, parents and society at large do not tolerate illegal drug taking. As a result of that, there is far less acquisitive crime and far fewer drug addicts. The population is healthier. We need to try, if we possibly can, to use the evidence of what has been done in Sweden and the evidence of the more successful rehabilitation clinics that I have visited in this country, such as the excellent Promise centre in south Kensington, where I met some of the addicts and their families only two or three weeks ago, to ensure that we have a more sensible and effective anti-drugs policy than the Government's failed policy. 3.15 pm

Bob Ainsworth: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, and all members of the Committee, for the thorough and thought-provoking way in which the Committee's recommendations were produced earlier in the year.
	The report and all the work that went into it has made a crucial contribution to the Government's policy, although we were not able to agree with all of the Committee's recommendations. For example, we have different views on the reclassification of ecstasy. Ecstasy is a drug that has not been misused to the degree that cannabis has, or for the same length of time. Knowledge of the long-term health consequences of the use of ecstasy is not as well founded as it is in respect of cannabis, but people die as a result of taking it. I believe profoundly that much of the harm minimisation work that is necessary to save the lives of those who are abusing ecstasy can still take place without any need to reclassify it. I hope that we proved that when we published the safer clubbing guidance earlier in the year. We were therefore not able and not minded to accept the Committee's recommendation.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South is already aware that we did not support the Committee's request that we consider a provision for injecting rooms. However, many of the Committee's other recommendations have been extremely valuable and they have been fully embedded in the updated drugs strategy. For example, the Committee's call for a renewed emphasis on harm minimisation and for the focus of education to be on class A drugs and problematic drug users now stand as central features of the new updated strategy.

Brian Iddon: I am not convinced by the arguments on ecstasy. There is a great deal of science available, and it seems that ecstasy damages the brain. Whether that is reversible or irreversible is a point of controversy. Is my hon. Friend prepared, as he has done with cannabis, to refer ecstasy to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs for a serious study?

Bob Ainsworth: We cannot go down that road and we have made it clear that we are not prepared to do so. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has a remit to keep under review the classification of all drugs. It is free to do that and it will continue to do so. From time to time it will make recommendations to which we will have to respond. It will do so with regard to cannabis and ecstasy. There is no need for us to approach the council. The Government's position is clear on the classification of ecstasy. As we do not know what the long-term consequences of the abuse of ecstasy are on individual health, and because it kills people unpredictably, we are not prepared to reclassify ecstasy.
	In our new strategy, we will focus on the most dangerous drugs, the most damaged communities and the individuals whose addiction and chaotic lifestyles are the most harmful, both to themselves and others. The misery that they cause cannot be overestimated, which is why, under the strategy, all controlled drugs are illegal and will remain so.
	We are making an unparalleled investment to tackle the harm that drugs cause. Direct annual expenditure will increase by 44 per cent. over the next three years, with a total investment of nearly £1.5 billion by 2005–06. The extra resources that we are committing to the fight against drugs demand high standards of delivery. Home Office teams will work with local partnerships and agencies to identify problems and ways of tackling them, including better mechanisms for supporting effective delivery and improved systems for monitoring and evaluating progress.
	The strategy is not new—we are not starting from scratch. We are learning from, building on and adapting the 10-year strategy started in 1998. The strategy will be driven by a stronger focus on education, prevention, enforcement and treatment to prevent and tackle problematic drug use. We will deliver that key agenda by using what we have learned over the past four years—what works and what does not. The Opposition spokesman talked about the former drugs tsar and what he had to say. I wish to make it clear that the strategy is not a dog's dinner. It may be more fitting to point out that the dog barks when the caravan moves on.

Bob Russell: Will the Minister put on record the fact that while more young people are taking drugs than ever before, they are still a minority? The vast majority of young people do not take drugs regularly. In his fight to prevent more young people taking drugs, will the Minister pay tribute to the excellent work by voluntary youth organisations and youth leaders, who play a vital role in making sure that the number of young people taking drugs is reduced and does not increase?

Bob Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is partly why we are not prepared to contemplate, and the Select Committee on Home Affairs did not recommend, going down the legalisation or decriminalisation route. There is evidence that a lot of young people are deterred from experimenting with drugs by the fact that they are illegal. The majority of people do not take illegal drugs, but we should not underestimate the size of the problem. We should pick up what the Chairman of the Select Committee said—for the past 30 years, we have not had a proud record in this area.
	We have one of the biggest problems in the world with illegal drug use, and nobody should be proud of Britain's record. The Conservative spokesman has an admirable ability utterly to ignore the facts at the Dispatch Box. To suggest that just a few years ago we were edging towards a solution and that everything is now going backwards is a complete travesty of the truth. Under the Conservative Government, crime doubled, and there is clear evidence that the steepest rise in problematic drug use took place in the late 1980s and early 1990s. How on earth the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) can say that the position was anything other than that is strange but, in its own way, admirable. We have seen him take a similar stance on many other issues on many other occasions.

Paul Flynn: Does my hon. Friend recall that when the 10-year strategy was introduced in the House in 1998, it was supported, in every detail and target, by the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats?

Bob Ainsworth: I am not surprised that my hon. Friend has raised that, as he has long-standing views on the issue. There was a wide consensus in favour of the 10-year drug strategy at the time. We should remind ourselves of the current position. Just because the ex-drugs tsar has made pronouncements for his own purposes in the past few years, we should not forget that, before 1998, there was no strategy at all. Somebody had to pull people together and point them in the right direction. There was no evidence base whatsoever—that was not the tsar's fault, but it can be blamed, if we want to be blatantly party political, on the party that had been in government for a generation. The targets set by the tsar were, I accept, pulled out of thin air and taken from other jurisdictions—they were described by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary as aspirational.
	Something has been achieved in the past four years, as we have at least started to build an evidence base and, with support, are pushing our policies in the right direction. It is only right, however, to review the strategy now, refocus it and learn lessons about what has not been working and what is not attainable. It would be irresponsible of us to do otherwise.

John Mann: Nobody in my constituency wants vague targets instead of quantifiable evidence-based outcomes. In that context, will my hon. Friend look at the evidence from my inquiry on the quality and variety of teaching in secondary education? Best practice can affect whether or not young people can relate to a message delivered to them, and is fundamental to whether they hear the message at all.

Bob Ainsworth: I appreciate the depth of my hon. Friend's analysis of the problem in his constituency. He has made an important contribution to the debate that has opened up over the past year. I hope that he does not think that we have retreated from all the targets in the drugs strategy—we most certainly have not. Treatment is key to whether or not we succeed. If Opposition Members care to look at the strategy, they will see not only that treatment targets are still included, but that they are on course to be delivered and that we have strengthened them—there is now a requirement to look at the quality of the treatment provided and the number of people who successfully complete an entire course of treatment. We have strengthened some targets, but have also got rid of aspirational targets that did not help to motivate people working in this area. It is a case not of abandoning targets, but of refocusing the strategy on what is needed and what, we hope, will make a difference.

Simon Hughes: The Minister will know that we share his view that it is far better to get rid of the huge number of targets that, to use the Home Secretary's words, appear to have been plucked out of thin air and were almost certainly unachievable, and to refocus on a small number of targets which, we hope, are achievable. Treatment issues are key, as we are considering a health issue. A two-week maximum waiting time from referral to receipt of treatment is proposed in the new Government strategy. The establishment of 2,000 more intensive care programmes is also proposed. Are the Government determined to set themselves a date by which at least minimum provision is available along those lines in each part of the country, following the National Audit Commission's recommendation? As the Minister knows, one of the problems has been that people in some places can wait for months or years, while others receive much speedier treatment.

Bob Ainsworth: We need not only to increase massively the amount of treatment, but to ensure that it is provided in the places where it is needed. The targets are there and the National Treatment Agency has been established to try to ensure that they are met not broadly across the board, but in localities; that a work force are developed who will enable us to meet those targets and get people into treatment on the proposed time scales; and that good-quality treatment is provided. We believe that, by the end of the 10-year strategy, we will be in a position to have doubled the amount of treatment in this country and to have places to get 200,000 people a year into quality treatment—the overwhelming majority of problematic drug users on the basis of the problem as we currently measure it.
	I am surprised when Opposition Members talk about treatment, as they are currently suggesting that we pour almost the entire treatment budget into residential rehabilitation that would treat a fraction of problematic drug users. Such treatment would be wholly inappropriate for many of those people, and what would the rest of them be left to do? I do not know about the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, but I know that his right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary is not a supporter of increased public spending. Is he not one of the people who had to be hushed up during the previous election for proposing £20 billion of cuts? The Conservative party will need to explain the suggestion that we can spend the entire treatment budget on providing residential rehabilitation for a fraction of problematic drug users and either leave the rest to fend for themselves or spend more instead.

Paul Flynn: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Bob Ainsworth: I want to make some progress, but I shall try to give way to my hon. Friend a little later.
	There can be few more deserving cases than those of parents, carers and families. The distress and disruption that drug misuse causes to families cannot be imagined if it has not been experienced. More support will be provided for families and carers so that those affected can easily access advice, help, counselling and mutual support. We will be looking substantially to improve the support given to families locally.
	Young people will remain a key priority. We will focus on preventing young people from taking and misusing drugs through a major new education campaign to drive home the risks. There will be support for young people most at risk and increased outreach and community treatment and support. That will include referrals to treatment and care through the youth justice system, so that by 2006, we will be supporting 40,000 to 50,000 vulnerable young people a year.
	We will take on the dealers and protect the communities from the harmful flow of drugs on to the streets. That will include strengthening enforcement action at both street level and the middle market level. We will disrupt supplies at all stages in the supply chain. The police need and deserve the full support of the other agencies and partners at a local level. We need co-ordinated activity by local partners to tackle drug supply at street level and build community resistance to dealers and their crimes.
	An awful lot has been said about Lambeth—a lot of factual stuff and also a lot of nonsense. In the past few years, we have managed to put together in Lambeth a coalition of the drug action team, the local authority and the police that has had considerable success against the open crack market that existed in the centre of Brixton. It has shut crack houses, arrested considerable numbers of dealers and pressured people into treatment in order to prevent them from going elsewhere and dispersing the problem to other boroughs. A lot of good work has been done in Lambeth in the past few months and it should be recognised.

Nick Hawkins: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am surprised that he wants to give such a paean of praise to what has happened in south London. I do not think that the residents see it that way.
	I wanted to intervene with regard to what the Minister said about support for addicts. Am I correct in my understanding that part of what the Government are now proposing in their new strategy is that a licence will be issued to hundreds of GPs to prescribe heroin to anyone who is a heroin junky and whom the GP thinks might benefit? Is that the Government's position on heroin?

Bob Ainsworth: If the hon. Gentleman could shelve his petty prejudices for just a second and participate in a factual debate, we would all be better off, as would his party.
	Our policy on the injection of heroin is very clear. We believe that, for serious opium addiction, methadone will overwhelmingly remain at the centre of treatment. It is a drug that the profession is used to working with, and comfortable with. It is also the most appropriate drug in many instances. There is, however, a lack of confidence in parts of the medical profession in regard to the prescription of heroin. In some cases, certainly those in which people have failed to respond to any other treatments that have been offered, it is appropriate. We are working with the profession now, and we have consensus around some guidelines that may give GPs the confidence to use diamorphine when it is the most appropriate drug to prescribe. It would be very sad if the hon. Gentleman were against that. What he has said also seems to go against what the shadow Home Secretary appears to be advocating.

Gwyn Prosser: Since the publication of the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs on drugs, and of the Government's response, the son of a close friend of mine has died in circumstances that suggested that he had been injecting heroin, although that has not finally been determined. May I ask my hon. Friend whose door we should knock on when people with drug problems—and those who are actually addicted—come into our surgeries and we cannot get them into detox centres or get them the treatment that they require?

Bob Ainsworth: We cannot grow these services to the level that is needed overnight. That simply is not possible. We need to grow the work force and the expertise, and we need to increase the quality of that work force. In the first instance, my hon. Friend needs to talk to his local drug action team. We need to provide the funding to his local DAT, so that it can grow the treatment to deal with the problems that exist in his community and many others. We have established the National Treatment Agency, which will help us to monitor the performance of his local DAT—and the others—so as to ensure it is hitting its waiting list targets, and that it has the most appropriate treatments in place to deal with the addicts in his community.
	There is no one-size-fits-all solution. That is what annoys me about the policy that is coming across the opposite Dispatch Box, which is that only residential rehabilitation amounts to treatment. In many circumstances, people do not need such rehabilitation, and it would be inappropriate to provide it. Sometimes a drug treatment may be appropriate, sometimes counselling. In the case of really chaotic drug users, it is a question, in the first instance, of getting hold of them, establishing contact and settling them down, so that we can start to deal with their problems. Dealing with addiction is a far more complex issue than the hon. Gentleman is prepared to acknowledge.

Paul Flynn: Is my hon. Friend as puzzled as I was by one of the claims made by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins)? We were told, in the all-party group on drugs misuse a few weeks ago, that the estimate of the number of people who had problems with addiction was 320,000—a higher figure than we had ever heard before—and that the number of those receiving some form of treatment was 118,000, also a substantial figure. The hon. Gentleman says that he will increase the amount of people in treatment tenfold, to 1 million, which is three times the number of addicted people. Can the hon. Gentleman be treated seriously?

Bob Ainsworth: I thought that too when I first heard the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) has some figures that are a lot nearer to what the Conservatives are saying, which suggest that the number of people in treatment that they are planning to increase tenfold involves only a fraction of the total. I think that they are planning to increase tenfold 2,000 residential rehabilitation places for young people, which would give us about 20,000 places. I do not know what they intend to do with the rest of the problematic drug users, but those plans are a little different from what I first thought they were, and from what my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) thinks they are.

John Mann: May I assist my hon. Friend with the figures, as I have them in front of me? The proposal involves 8,618 residential places, which would be available only to 11 to 19-year-olds. This is described as a tenfold increase precisely because it applies only to that age range. That figure is taken from the Conservative party's home affairs implementation paper.

Bob Ainsworth: I am not sure that we should dwell on the Conservative party's policies any longer, because Conservative Front Benchers need to sort out exactly what they are so that they can tell us what they mean by getting addicts into treatment and what is their policy on reclassification. They are certainly not prepared to do so at the moment.

Nick Hawkins: Will the Minister give way?

Bob Ainsworth: I shall give way again later if I can.
	The Government will also increase the amount of drug-related criminal assets that we recover as we work to make the UK the least desirable, most uncomfortable and most unprofitable place to deal drugs. We will make full use of the new powers introduced by the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to maximise the recovery of profits from those convicted of drug supply offences. There is no room for the notion that having convicted and sentenced a drug dealer, it would be wrong to confiscate that person's ill-gotten gains. We must drive that idea out of every corner of our criminal justice and law enforcement system.
	We will continue to collaborate with other countries, including the Afghan Government, to achieve their opium production eradication targets. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South, the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, who has expressed considerable scepticism about that, that Afghanistan now has a Government who are committed to ridding the country of its drug problems. They have set themselves targets and those will be extremely difficult to achieve. I understand that.
	We will have to do a lot of nation building before we can eradicate poppy cultivation in that country, but it would be wholly wrong not to send the new Afghan Administration the message that we are prepared to do as much as we can not only to help them to rebuild civil society, but to eradicate narcotics and the terrorism that flows from them, which prevents them from getting a grip of their country and being able to help their own people.

Nick Hawkins: Some minutes ago, when I first tried to intervene, the Minister was responding to the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) and praising the work of drug action teams. Will he comment on a letter recently sent to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), the shadow Home Secretary, by the chief executive of a drug action team? He says:
	XCurrently the proportion of time spent on planning, commissioning and monitoring provision is out of balance with the longevity of the funding streams and is thus highly inefficient and ineffective".
	That is the reality of the confused picture that the drug action teams, which can and do provide good work, are finding. Those remarks are from someone who is trying to run a DAT, and the Government are making his job much more difficult.

Bob Ainsworth: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman, never mind consistency of funding—DATs never existed when his party was in power. We need to go down the road of pooled budgets and we need to give people long planning times as well as indications of their budgets. We fully intend to do exactly that.
	There will be a major expansion of services to refer people to treatment and support via the criminal justice system. We will use every opportunity from pre-arrest to court and sentencing to identify drug-misusing offenders, engage them in treatment and break the link between drugs and crime.
	We will focus on the 250,000 class A drug users who account for 99 per cent. of the costs of drug abuse in England and Wales and who do the most harm to themselves, their families and their communities. We will expand treatment and support services to ensure that people get the help they need when they need it. By 2008, we will have the capacity to treat 200,000 problematic drug users each year.
	The evidence that we have received from a number of police forces and treatment agencies suggests that crack cocaine use is steadily increasing throughout the UK. The problems are acute and they demand urgent action. There will be new initiatives to stem the flow of crack to the UK, police action in a number of key force areas to close local crack markets and specialist treatment programmes for crack users.
	Treatment and support services will be extended to include a new package of aftercare services to help those leaving prison to rejoin society. We will make significantly more money available to plug what I consider to be the biggest gap in the drugs strategy, and provide through-care and after-care for people leaving prison and ending treatment. If we do not do that we will send those people straight back on to the market—straight back into the clutches of the dealers and straight back into crime, if indeed they do not kill themselves with overdoses. We must plug the gap, and that is one of the most important changes that we are making.
	All this adds up to a radical and comprehensive package to tackle drug misuse at all levels. Over the past year debate on the issue has made great strides, with only a few exceptions. Since my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary asked for an adult debate a year ago and since the Home Affairs Select Committee's report on the Government's drugs strategy, we have managed to open up discussion. We have managed to introduce much more common sense into that discussion, and to make room for people to exchange views at every level—from the political level down to the local level. That means that teachers and local practitioners will be more confident about discussing such matters. Only by providing open debate of that kind and giving people that confidence will we be able to make the real difference that will be needed over the next few years if we are to reduce the problem of drug abuse.

Simon Hughes: I pay tribute to the Minister, who, since taking his current position, has been entirely reasonable on this issue, as on others, and has been positive in trying to bring about the sort of constructive debate that is taking place now—with the odd exception. We need to engage in such debate if we are to meet the fundamental target that the Minister identified and reduce the amount of drug use, abuse and addiction, and reduce all that flows from those things. I pay similar tribute to the Minister's colleagues. We welcome the new spirit that has accompanied the arrival of the second Labour Administration, who—I say this straightforwardly—are different from the spirit of the first.
	Let me also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and his colleagues from all parties on the Select Committee, including my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) and the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron). I followed the Committee's deliberations from afar. It took evidence from people with personal experience of, for instance, family bereavement, who reached entirely different conclusions from each other, and who told the Committee dramatic and devastating things. I heard and read about those things. The Committee laboured hard to distil all the evidence and to ensure that it was up to date.
	The Committee has done us a service. I make only two exceptions in that regard. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I support nearly all the recommendations, but we disagreed with one recommendation on cannabis and we did not think that the Committee went far enough in respect of heroin prescribing. The report is very authoritative, and there is evidence of a huge amount of work. I want to thank the voluntary sector, in two contexts. The charity DrugScope is based in my constituency. It conducts evidence-based research, and in seeking to put its case on that evidence base it does us a great service—as do those parts of the voluntary sector mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, including faith groups and the youth service, which try to educate people about lifestyle choices that are better than those leading to addiction. It often does a brilliant job in protecting young people from the peer-group pressures from which they all suffer. In many cases it pulls them back after they have tested the water—as young people always do.
	Like the Select Committee, my colleagues have done a huge amount of work. My noble Friend Lady Walmsley chaired a policy committee for a year, which went around the country taking evidence and talking to people. She took the committee's conclusions to our conference in Manchester in the spring. We had a full morning's debate and reached conclusions that, although not everyone agreed with them, followed a democratic decision-making process based on the best evidence available.
	We are all trying to get the best answers and I salute the Government on their strategy, which I consider to be much more along the right lines than the last one, not least because they have dropped some of their absolutely unachievable, undeliverable targets and are focusing on the simple message that this is principally a health issue not a crime issue and that prevention and treatment are central to making sure that we break the back of what has become a nightmare in many communities, with addiction leading to crime, illness and sometimes death.

Nick Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman said that one or two members of his party might not share his view. Would they include, perhaps, Lord Alton of Liverpool, who recently chaired a superb conference in the House of Lords at which my views about cannabis, which are shared by leading members of the National Drug Prevention Alliance, were advanced? It was attended by some of the most authoritative speakers from Sweden, who explained how they have created a national consensus.

Simon Hughes: My noble Friend Lord Alton was a Liberal and a Liberal Democrat, but he left our party to become a Cross Bencher. I do not in any way undermine his view, but I was referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, who takes a different view from mine, as do some of my other hon. Friends. Our views do not follow a pre-ordained pattern. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), who has worked in the health service, believes that we should legalise all drugs. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) who has had international business experience, takes a very different view.

David Cameron: They are Liberals—they do not have to agree with each other.

Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is being unfair; he knows that there are different views in all parties. We must not dishonour the debate by pretending that party allegiance is its most important factor. We must welcome the debate, which should be based on evidence.
	In May this year my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) asked the Minister for some figures about the purchase cost of drugs, both now and over the past 10 years. The price of many addictive drugs has fallen considerably in the past 10 years. Between 1990 and 2002, the price of heroin fell from £90 to £63 per gram; cocaine fell from £87 to £60 per gram; amphetamine fell from £13.80 to £9 per gram; ecstasy fell from £18.80 to £7 a pill; LSD fell from £4.20 to £3.40 a tablet; and cannabis resin fell from £91.80 to £77 per ounce. The only price that has remained roughly similar over the past five years is that of crack cocaine. The concern is that, if we are not careful, illegal drugs will become cheaper and more easily accessible than alcohol. Certain drugs might become even more appealing for young people because they will be easier and cheaper to buy than a pint of lager. Drugs are easy to get hold of in normal life—young people do not have to go looking for them. That is why the issue goes beyond illegal drugs and includes alcohol, tobacco and so-called medicinal drugs that can also become addictive, such as amphetamines.
	The Minister referred to the UK's terrible record of failure. Over the past 30 years, we have had more addicts than almost any other European country. That is not just my opinion—in my constituency, drug addiction is such a regular issue that I wish I could say anything but that—but is backed up by independent surveys. The Minister will be aware of the recent report by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. Its summary refers to a significant increase in cocaine and ecstasy use in the UK. It also refers to 44 per cent. of 16 to 29-year-olds having consumed cannabis. Another point in the report is often made by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn)—that the average age of heroin users is going down, whereas in other countries, such as the Netherlands, it is increasing. So we have a real problem, in that addicts are becoming younger.
	That is not mere theory. Almost every week, on going home after a late sitting of the House I see a daughter of a friend of mine—she is in her 20s—sitting outside a late-night supermarket, or standing on a petrol station forecourt. She has been waiting to get money to buy some more drugs. Sometimes, she knocks on my door in the early hours of the morning. Six years ago, that young woman was at home leading a drug-free life; now, she is a prostitute on drugs. People abuse her all the time, and almost all of her family relationships have broken down. That is a tragedy. We have all met such people in our surgeries. If she survives, it will be almost a miracle.
	A friend of mine who is in his 30s—he is a constituent who came to my surgery a year ago—went through 14 years of addiction to heroin and alcohol. He is now clean and doing well, so there are good news stories, but he went through a terrible period, and we should never underestimate how awful such experiences are. Another friend went through a period of going clubbing and taking ecstasy every weekend. I could see what was going on. Mondays and Tuesdays were bad, things improved a bit by Thursday, and he was ready to go clubbing again by Friday. There is, of course, a risk; every year, a few people die as a result of ecstasy use. Mercifully, in his case he grew out of it. It may have lasting effects, but the reality is that it does not pose the same addictive risk as serious drugs such as heroin and crack cocaine.
	These issues confront us all, which is why this debate is hugely important. Interestingly, it has moved from the side courts to the centre court. The last time that we had such a debate, it was held in Westminster Hall; today, it is being held here because it deserves to be. It concerns one of the central issues of health and crime in our society.
	Before I set out the key factors as I perceive them, I appeal to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) to look at, and to respond to, the evidence rather more readily than he and his colleagues do at the moment. However, he and I are in agreement in at least one respect, in that I, too, believe that we must treat people who are in charge of vehicles and under the influence of drugs in the same way as we treat those who drive under the influence of drink. I think that I know of the family to whom he refers, and the daughter who gave evidence. Many people are injured or lose their lives because we do not yet treat this problem seriously. I ask the Minister to talk to his colleagues in the Department for Transport. We can do more to ensure that similar tests apply to both offences. For example, the old test of whether a person can walk a straight line could be used. It is really important that we send out the message that being under the influence of alcohol or of any other drug is equally unacceptable.

Bob Ainsworth: As the hon. Gentleman knows, such tests are already carried out. However, we are conducting research that could support the use of a visible test, and we may have something to help the police to test addicts by next August.

Simon Hughes: That is very encouraging news, and many families will be reassured by it. I know of constituents—they have since become friends—who have lost relatives in collisions involving someone who was under the influence. They feel an enormous sense of injustice at the fact that the law has not treated them equally.

Nick Hawkins: As the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to point out, I have worked on this issue for a long time, and I am delighted that he agrees with me. Indeed, in the end there may be all-party agreement on it; I certainly hope so. We intend to introduce our own Bill during this Session to try to improve the opportunity to collect evidence and to try to give the police the additional testing powers that they need. I am prepared to discuss with him, and with the Minister, how we might take that forward. In other words, there may be no need to wait until August; if all parties agree, we could produce something in this Session.

Simon Hughes: On all such issues, I am entirely happy to collaborate with the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, and with the Minister and his colleagues. None of us gains by taking a party political view on this matter. If we can get the right legislation soon we can change attitudes about drug use. Changed attitudes to drink driving and drinking at lunch time have rendered those activities less frequent. If the same thing happened with drugs, that would be very welcome.
	One great international point affects us all, and that is that we will not be able to control demand until we control supply. The Minister is right to say that countries such as Afghanistan and those in south America must be the focus of our attention. I know that Ministers in the Department for International Development, the Home Office, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and elsewhere understand that. However, unless we can change the agriculture in those countries and make sure that people do not make a living from exporting heroin and other drugs at high prices, we will not be able to deal with the problem. Traffickers come here from the drug-exporting countries, and we know what happens as a result.
	The Liberal Democrat party always seeks to respect international law, and the drugs problem is covered by international agreements and Geneva conventions. We are not allowed to legalise the use of narcotics, and my party accepts that constraint. However, the difference between us and the two other main parties is that we believe that the evidence in connection with cannabis, in particular, points to the clear conclusion that personal use and growing for personal use and social supply to another person should not be treated as criminal activities. We agree with DrugScope and other organisations—and by implication with the Home Affairs Committee—that the logic is that cannabis should be downgraded to a category C drug, as the Home Secretary intends. However, it is nonsense at the same time to make the possession of cannabis an arrestable offence for which a person can be imprisoned, as provided in the Criminal Justice Bill that had its Second Reading yesterday.That is a mixed message, if ever there was one. I have said as much to Home Office Ministers, and I repeat it this afternoon. We need the message to be clear. Some drugs, such as heroin and crack cocaine, are very dangerous, and other drugs, such as ecstasy, present an intermediate danger. I do not argue that cannabis is not dangerous, or that it may not be proved to be more so, but the evidence shows that it is in a different league. The hundreds of thousands of people who use it every week should not risk arrest for personal possession of cannabis. Anything else is a nonsense.

Bob Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but I do not accept that the message is mixed. The hon. Gentleman should look at the provisions in the Criminal Justice Bill to facilitate an arrestable offence with regard to class C drugs, and at the guidance drawn up by the Association of Chief Police Officers, to which the police service has a real commitment. The provisions will limit how and when an arrestable offence is used. Such an offence should be used where a public order problem arises, and when there is blatant and continued use of cannabis. Police officers should not expect to have to face people who flatly refuse to comply with a request. That is the intention. Taken together, the ACPO guidance and the proposed new criminal justice framework do not transmit the mixed message that the hon. Gentleman fears.

Simon Hughes: I absolutely understand what the Government are trying to do. I have looked at the ACPO guidance, but I still do not think that the approach will work. People who go around with cannabis are at risk of being arrested and even imprisoned, if only for a short period, as are people who might be thought to be committing a breach of public order offence by, say, winding up the police. To be honest, that represents a misdirection of resources.
	It must be better and clearer to say to people who smoke cannabis on their own that that remains a crime but that the policy is one of no arrest, no prosecution. The same applies to people who give cannabis to their mates for nothing, and to those who grow it in gardens or window boxes. However, people who start flogging cannabis on the streets are dealing, and can be prosecuted. People who stand outside school gates and deal cannabis will be clobbered with a severe sentence. Dealing is a commercial activity, and needs to be firmly dealt with.
	I know what the difficulty in countries such as the Netherlands has been. The Dutch policy of having legitimate entry by the front door of a cannabis café but illegitimate entry by the back door to the suppliers of the cannabis strikes me as hypocritical. Until the UN convention can allow country opt-out, for which I hope the European Union will push, the best course of action is to keep cannabis use as a crime but have a non-prosecution policy for personal use, not for dealing. I put cannabis into that category for all sorts of reasons: it is widely used, it is the least harmful and there is no evidence of it causing death.
	That is why we put ecstasy into the intermediate category and support the Home Affairs Committee's recommendations that it, too, be downgraded.The question that I am always asked is whether I would suggest downgrading ecstasy to the family of Leah Betts. I would and do suggest it to them, because although there are a handful of deaths from ecstasy there are 10 times as many from amphetamines. Of course there is a risk, but the evidence-based conclusion is that ecstasy has nothing like the same risk or addiction as other drugs. I would be happy, as the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) said, to refer this question to the advisory committee so that it can give us its evidence-based view. If its members say that it should be downgraded, we should follow that recommendation. I would be much happier with that than with a party political view.
	I understand the media issues; I understand the personal grief and trauma that is involved. No one wants any other youngster to take ecstasy and risk dying, which is why the clubbing guide is welcome. However, ecstasy is not in the same league as heroin and crack cocaine. It is nonsense to keep it in the same category and it should be downgraded.

Bob Russell: Although it is obvious that cannabis is not in the same league as heroin, does my hon. Friend accept that we should not send out the message that it is okay, especially when it is known that cannabis is considerably stronger now than it was 10 years ago?

Simon Hughes: I absolutely agree with that. If we are to introduce evidence-based legislation, we need to be able to change the categories as the evidence changes and drugs because more or less pure or more or less strong. We have to be able to respond to what is happening in the real world where people are flogging drugs.
	If cannabis, ecstasy and heroin are put in one rolled-up category, more people will be pushed into the hands of the dealers. If people who use cannabis socially have to get their supplies from someone who wants them as a regular customer, the supplier will want them to buy something that costs more and makes them more dependent. It is obvious to me that addiction lies down that road.
	I am no expert on this subject, although, like the Minister, I read about it. I come to this as a lay person looking at the evidence. In its summary, Home Office research study No. 253, headed XThe road to ruin? Sequences of initiation into drug use and offending by young people in Britain", says:
	XMy interpretation of the results of this study is that true gateway effects"—
	that is, starting on cannabis and proceeding to other drugs—
	Xare probably very small and that the association between soft and hard drugs found in survey data is largely the result of our inability to observe all the personal characteristics underlying individual drug use."
	The best evidence suggests that people do not go automatically from cannabis to other drugs unless the person who flogged them the cannabis tries to get them on to harder drugs. People are then prone to that happening and are likely to be caught.

Angela Watkinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. Does he recognise that many clubbers who use ecstasy are polydrug users and that those who sell it to them are polydrug dealers? That is one reason why it would be so dangerous to separate ecstasy and downgrade it.

Simon Hughes: I am with the hon. Lady half way on that. I think that, on the current evidence, cannabis is in one category but that the use or possession of ecstasy should not be regarded as not criminal. It is therefore in that side of the park, beyond which is heroin and crack cocaine. I accept what the hon. Lady says. Cannabis is widely used—although I do not use it and I am sure that the hon. Lady does not—but if we can prevent it from being one of the drugs that the polydrug dealers want to sell and separate cannabis sellers from the people who want to flog ecstasy tablets, heroin and crack cocaine, whom we want to catch and lock up, we should do our constituents a better service.
	I agree with the Minister about the Lambeth experiment. I have talked to former Commander Brian Paddick and to acting Commander Brian Moore. They hold the same view on the issue: the experiment worked. I like and respect the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), but she is wrong about this matter. Many people have pretended things that are not true about Lambeth. I live next door to Lambeth and am often in the area. The evidence from Brian Paddick and Brian Moore is the same, although they are entirely different people, with entirely different perspectives on the issue: we did better by not chasing cannabis users and we caught more people dealing hard drugs. Lambeth was not a honeypot for people coming from elsewhere. The police monitored the people whom they picked up and they were not drug tourists. The same people were peddling drugs before the experiment began. During the experiment, the police were more able to catch them because they had more time. I hope we can lay the honeypot claim to rest. The evidence from people on the ground is that the Lambeth experiment worked.
	Yesterday, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) pointed out that a distinction might be made, which I hope Ministers will consider, as to whether or not people were carrying drugs for their personal use. There is merit in examining the substantial possession test—as a variant on the suggestion of the Home Affairs Committee—so that we can catch people who are clearly not carrying drugs for their own use because they have such huge quantities that, unless they were superhuman, they could never use them in a reasonable period.
	I hope that we are all united in wanting severe punishments for people who trade and traffic drugs and try to exploit people where they are vulnerable, especially outside schools and youth clubs. Such dealers should expect the harshest penalty.
	The Minister mentioned people who were leaving prison. Until recently, prison was one of the easiest places to become a drug addict. The Prison Service has worked hard, using sniffer dogs and other methods, to stop that. However, my view—although I took some persuading—which is shared by the majority of my colleagues, is that prison should never be the answer for those convicted only of possession of any drug. Our prisons are full to overcrowded and to lock people up because they use drugs is to criminalise people who should be receiving treatment for their addiction from the health service. I hope that we can get away from the idea of prison, even for people who constantly use heroin. If necessary, we can send them to prison for nicking from houses or cars because they want money for drugs—that is a different matter.
	I hope that the Government will not forget about producing their alcohol strategy. On Friday nights, in streets in my area, such as the Old Kent road, more trouble is probably caused by alcohol than by drugs. I think that many of my colleagues have the same experience.
	Following the Cambridge Two case, I hope that the Government will accept the recommendation of the Select Committee and amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. People running hostels should not get clobbered when they do not knowingly preside over drug taking and are trying to look after people and help them. We need to ensure that such places work well.
	The exercise is not cost free. We are debating public expenditure estimates—the public budget. We are talking not about small sums but about billions of pounds. Will Ministers make it clear that the balance should continue to be tilted towards prevention and treatment rather than towards dealing with people only after they have been caught? I am advised that in the next financial year the proportion of money to be spent on treatment is less than a third of the total allocation. We can sort out the problems only if we spend much more on the prevention and treatment of addiction and much less on enforcement.
	The debate is important. We are all united in our objectives. The Government are moving in the right direction and we welcome that. They get seven out of 10 for going the right way, but we hope that they will think again about things such as cannabis and ecstasy: please, no more muddled messages.

Paul Flynn: It is a delight to speak in this debate. Having spoken in every debate about drugs in this House since 1987, I know that there is a change today. In every one of those debates, until recent years, there was unanimity in the House that the only way of solving the problems was to introduce more tough policies—and every year it was clear that the policies were not working.
	Before 1971 we had a British way of dealing with heroin addicts. There were fewer than 1,000 addicts, there was virtually no drug crime and deaths were extremely rare. That is the system to which we should return. There has been criticism by one of the newspapers suggesting that at that time there was leakage from the system—and occasionally there was, including a case involving two doctors. Because of that, politicians behaved as we often do: babies cry, dogs bark and politicians legislate. We put on the statute book the most damaging piece of legislation on drugs that has been introduced in Europe—the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. According to the National Treatment Centre, we now have not 1,000 addicts but 320,000, and we have 40 per cent. of all the drug deaths in our continent of Europe.
	I have had the job of acting as the Council of Europe's rapporteur on drugs for its health committee. I have visited many other countries to see what is going on, and I beg the House to look at what has occurred in the Netherlands, Switzerland, Portugal and Germany; throughout our continent there is a change of view, which has come through to this House.
	It is a pleasure to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the other Ministers now responsible for drugs policy, who are the most reasonable that we have had in my time in Parliament. I can remember a debate in the early 1990s when the then Conservative spokesman, Mr. Mellor, said that there was one thing of which he could be absolutely certain—that heroin use had peaked in Britain.
	I recall another occasion when the two Front-Bench spokesmen had to leave the Chamber during a debate to go out for a fix because they were both addicted to cigarettes, which are far more damaging than any of the drugs about which they were talking. There is a contrast between the drugs of choice of my generation and those of young people.
	It was a shame that we had to suffer the vacuous speech of the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). It was the usual mix of prejudice and ignorance that we have come to expect from him. I appeal to the Conservatives—including the shadow Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), who made a distinguished contribution in the Select Committee—to get one of their able and intelligent Members to act as their spokesman if the official Opposition are not to be left behind in the debate.
	A tongue-in-cheek award of parliamentarian of the year was made to the leader of my party, who deserves many awards, but perhaps not that one. The person who gave the award suggested that it was given in order to foment trouble between the Prime Minister and his next-door neighbour. However, the award of parliamentarian's parliamentarian of the year should be given to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). I did not attend quite as many meetings of the Committee as he did, but I found those that I did attend an elevating experience because of the quality of cross-examination and the variety of witnesses.
	I shall never forget one witness, Fulton Gillespie, who spoke about something of which we all have experience in our constituencies: mothers—it usually is mothers—ringing up to say that their young people are on drugs, asking what they should do, and wondering whether they should buy drugs or find a safe supply for them. I have a case of a mother with two daughters who are prostituting themselves; one has just had a baby who is also addicted to drugs. We feel hopeless in these cases, and I feel especially hopeless when I receive a letter such as the one I received on 28 October from the Gwent healthcare trust, informing me that the average waiting time for treatment is 11 months and the longest waiting time, for the specialist substance misuse service, is 17 months.
	This is not a party matter, and people should not reduce it to one. We have had 30 years of monumental failure by all parties, united in error year after year. We are now escaping from it by having, for the first time, a policy of reducing the status of cannabis in law and a policy on the medical prescription of pharmaceutical heroin. That worked well until 1971. Lots of heroin users were veterans of the first world war who became addicted on the battlefield. There was the famous case of the author of XNational Velvet"—a distinguished English lady living the life of a country gentlewoman, who took vast amounts of heroin every day in the form of pharmaceutical diamorphine. It killed her eventually: she took more heroin than most people take on the streets, but she eventually died a serene death at the age of 91. That is the alternative.
	Fulton Gillespie talked about his son in very affectionate terms. He said what a nice chap he was, and how he loved him. He said that his son was more sensitive than his other four children and got upset about cruelty to animals, the cost of war and the Falklands war. He was not making excuses for his son, who had treatment. I shall explain how his death occurred. He went into prison on remand because he was stealing to feed his habit, but no heroin was available on remand. If he had been put into the normal prison, heroin would have been freely available, as it is in most of our prisons. When he came out of prison he went on to the streets to get his heroin. He took the same strength of heroin as before, but it was contaminated and it killed him. He was killed not by heroin, but by prohibition. He was killed by the fact that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 brought in strict prohibition.
	We should not dismiss those people as junkies, as the Opposition spokesman did. That can happen to any family, and they are not some subspecies; they are part of our families and our constituencies, and they deserve the same compassionate treatment as anyone else.
	Mr. Fulton Gillespie rightly said that the only answer is legalisation of all drugs. That does not mean a free-for-all, or that we want to encourage anyone to use drugs. DrugScope said in its submission that in all the cases in which there has been a policy of changing the regime on drugs, particularly cannabis, doing so has not led to an increase. That can be backed up by cases from all over the world, from Australia to the Netherlands and Switzerland.
	We must make it clear that after 30 years of the harshest prohibition in Europe, Britain has by far the greatest use of cannabis in Europe and by far the greatest number of drug deaths. Yet after 25 years of regulated licensed criminalisation—this is not theoretical; it has happened—Holland has split the two markets. It has lower heroin use than this country, one tenth of our heroin deaths and a lower use of cannabis in all sections of society. The main reason why that has happened is the division between the soft drugs market and the hard drugs market. Young people who want to experiment, as they do in this country and other parts of Europe, can do so without being exposed to the pushers of hard drugs.
	I disagree with my hon. Friend the Minister about the idea that there are other fixes. We have to look at what has happened elsewhere and imitate the successes. We certainly should not go down the same road as the United States. We are now in the extraordinary position of having 130 per 100,000 of our citizens in jail. That is nearly the highest figure in Europe, and it is double the average. America, with its harsh drug policies, has 700 people in jail per 100,000.
	If we want to find a record of failure, which we must not repeat in Afghanistan, we need only look at Colombia. It has been said that we can eliminate drug use in Afghanistan and that we support a Government who will reduce poppy growing there. In fact there was a Government who were reducing poppy growing—they were called the Taliban—but the Northern Alliance was increasing poppy growing. That policy will not work. The result of trying the same policy in Colombia is chaos and continual warfare between three armies, two of which are funded entirely by drug use.
	The great danger is that heroin production will not be eliminated by persuasion, bribery or whatever other means without providing alternative crops, because the money incentive is too strong. If it were eliminated in Afghanistan, the drugs would then be grown in Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Burma. We are now told that they are grown in North Korea. We cannot stop that supply, and the drugs are being sucked in through this country. We have heard about the drop in price, but drug production and exports to this country are completely out of control.
	When we know that there are a huge number of people who become unable to work because they must enter a cycle of getting their drug, committing crimes to pay for it, sleeping it off and going through the same cycle again, do we say to those young people who are blighted by drugs that the only market available to them is a market run by criminals? Is not the only sensible way of dealing with the situation to collapse the evil, irresponsible black market in drugs by replacing it with a market that can be legalised, policed, licensed and controlled? That has happened in the Netherlands, and is happening now in Portugal. The Select Committee gave great attention to the drug users rooms that I have visited in a number of continental countries, which have an immediate beneficial effect. They immediately reduce crime, as they did in Switzerland, and have an immediate beneficial effect on the health of users—

Pete Wishart: The hon. Gentleman is experienced enough in these affairs to know that the regime in Portugal and Holland is decriminalisation not legalisation. Will he make that distinction? Why does he think that legalisation is much more appropriate than what we see in those two countries?

Paul Flynn: I want to make that my final point about what we can do.
	The problem at the moment is the 1961 UN convention, which binds most countries in Europe and limits the things that we can do. In Holland it has led to the front door and back door problem in relation to the supplier, which is illogical and causes concern there. We are told by DrugScope that we can do a great deal more than we are doing now within the terms of the UN convention. The important thing is that that convention will come up for reconsideration in 2003, and it is up to us to make sure that we alter it to allow the practical experiments that have been proved to be beneficial elsewhere to be tried throughout Europe. Every country in Europe is struggling with the UN convention.
	The explanation of how we got into this position dates back to the 1920s, when America had a Government almost as right-wing as the Government that it has now. That Government were religious-based and believed in prohibition. They introduced prohibition of alcohol and drugs, which spread throughout the world. That was the main cause of the problems that we have now. There was no recreational use of cannabis in Britain until it was prohibited. The argument is that perversely, prohibition increases use, because it creates profits for a group of people, as it did in America, where an empire of crime was established—and illegal drugs have done the same thing.
	To return to the system that worked effectively here—as the Government are doing, slowly, tentatively and correctly—and to allow doctors to prescribe heroin will be a major step forward. I commend the Government for taking on the Daily Mail, the Evening Standard and The Daily Telegraph, which for the past two years, before the Government took their decision, had been calling for an intelligent debate on drugs, and pragmatic policies. Three early-day motions were tabled in the last Session describing the encouraging things that they had said about a change of policy. As soon as the Government had the courage to change policy, however, they condemned the Government in terms similar to those used by the Opposition spokesman tonight.
	We must congratulate the Select Committee and the Government and acknowledge that we have at least changed directions. For 30 years all Governments have treated each successive increase in drug use with more of the policies that helped to create that increase, with tougher policies and longer prison sentences. For once, we have a policy that should be described not as tough but as what it is: intelligent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House, if it needs reminding, that Mr. Speaker has put a 15-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Peter Lilley: Like others, I welcome the report of the Home Affairs Committee and the introductory speech that we heard from its Chairman. I also welcome the many aspects in the Government's drugs strategy that have cross-party support.
	Since I became involved in considering these issues and, in particular, since I published a pamphlet entitled XCommon Sense on Cannabis", I have been struck by how the debates tend to be bedevilled by a threefold confusion. First, there is the confusion between soft and hard drugs. Secondly, there is the confusion between the use and abuse of drugs and, thirdly, there is the confusion between what is immoral and what is and should be illegal. I shall say a few words about each of those sources of confusion.
	On the confusion between soft and hard drugs, immense harm has been done by the attempt to demonise cannabis and to present it as if it is as bad as and on a par with heroin, cocaine and other hard drugs. Claiming that cannabis is as bad as hard drugs discredits what we say about hard drugs. Therefore, it is sensible in principle to reclassify cannabis in accordance with its true nature. I am predisposed to accepting the Committee's recommendation that it is also sensible to reclassify ecstasy.
	The argument that reclassification sends the wrong signals ignores the fact that maintaining an absurd classification also sends a false and misleading message. It sends the message that heroin and crack cocaine are no worse than cannabis and ecstasy. Heroin and cocaine are seriously worse, and we do not want people who discover that using cannabis in moderation has little ill effect on their health to think that, because it is classified in a similar category to more damaging drugs, those drugs will not damage them.
	Even greater damage is done by the attempt to confuse the two groups by claiming that soft drugs, while not in themselves as damaging as hard drugs, lead ineluctably to the use of hard drugs—the so-called gateway theory. It is not a valid theory. The fact that most heroin users previously used cannabis is not proof that they were caused to use heroin by their prior use of cannabis. In fact, most cannabis users previously used tobacco, but the simple fact is that most tobacco users do not go on to use cannabis and even fewer cannabis users go on to use heroin. There is certainly no chemical predisposition in the use of cannabis leading one to the use of heroin or cocaine.
	If the gateway theory were true and people who used cannabis were led on to hard drugs, there would be a strong case for maintaining the toughest possible sanctions on cannabis to stop people moving down that slippery slope. If it is not true, the effect of keeping cannabis as an illegal drug creates a gateway effect of its own. Cannabis is available only from the same illegal sources that push hard drugs. We are saying to people that, if they wish to use cannabis, they must pass through the supply gateway and bring themselves into contact with the people who may push upon them hard drugs such as heroin and cocaine.
	I fear that the Government are risking getting the worst of all worlds. They are simply reclassifying and reducing the criminal penalties, but are not going the logical step further that is essential if we are to break the link between soft and hard drugs. They are not providing through licensing committees legal outlets for cannabis in each area so that the people who insist on buying this boring and unattractive drug can do so legally without coming into contact with the people and gangs who will push the hard drugs. That would take the supply of the drug out of the hands of the gangs and thereby reduce their empire and wealth.
	The second confusion is between the use and abuse of drugs. In XCommon Sense on Cannabis", published by the Social Market Foundation at £5 or available free from my website www.peterlilley.co.uk, I argued that cannabis is relatively safe if it is not abused. I quoted The Lancet study of all the medical evidence available which said:
	XOn the medical evidence available, moderate indulgence in cannabis has little ill effect on health, and that decisions to ban or legalise cannabis should be based on other considerations."
	I emphasise Xmoderate" and Xlittle". I am not saying that it has no effect or that heavy and sustained use are not harmful. Indeed, I specifically stated that, although moderate and occasional cannabis use has few ill effects on health, it can be harmful if used heavily and continuously.
	Several recent studies have been reported in ways which suggest that that picture has changed. If it has, we ought to accept the evidence. I am an old-fashioned person, perhaps because of my training as a scientist. I think it was Keynes who said, XIf the evidence changes, I change my mind. What do you do?" Let us consider the recent evidence. There are number of studies. They all have one thing in common: if there is an ill effect that is causal, it is primarily the consequence of heavy and sustained use, and there is little, or much less, effect from occasional use.
	The first study, published by the British Lung Foundation, said that cannabis is more carcinogenic than tobacco. That is not a new idea. The study was simply a review of past studies, most of which were available to The Lancet report when it reviewed the evidence. I quoted The Lancet report as saying:
	XThere is some evidence that cannabis smoking may be even more likely than tobacco to generate bronchial ailments and to cause cancers especially if smoked in conjunction with tobacco."
	There is no reason for us to change our minds on that because we all know and accept that there is a carcinogenic risk. It would therefore be much better to have legal supplies of the substance, which are obliged to carry a health warning explaining that risk and others, as tobacco products do.
	The British Lung Foundation also made the point, which has been mentioned, that modern cannabis supplies may contain much higher concentrations of its active element tetrahydrocannabinol, known as THC. It implies that cannabis smoking is much more dangerous than it used to be and that although surveys have not found severe ill effects, they will in future. Whisky is much stronger than beer, but few people order it by the pint. I have not tried the stuff, and have no intention of doing so, but I understand that when people have stronger supplies of cannabis, they smoke less of it to get the same effect. So there is also no reason to change our mind on that.
	The three other studies were more substantial. An Australian study said that there are risks of depression from heavy and sustained use of cannabis, especially if one starts young and if one is a woman. If I am not misinterpreting the figures, it seems to suggest that sustained use of cannabis reduces the risk of depression in young men. However, it certainly seems to show an increased risk of depression among the relatively small number of heavy female users.
	The New Zealand study covers schizophrenia and depression. By contrast, it finds no link between depression and cannabis use, thereby undermining the Australian study. However, it finds a link between schizophrenic-type problems and the heavy and sustained use of cannabis.
	The third major study is a reworking of the famous Swedish study of 50,000 people who were conscripted in 1969 and have been followed since. That reinforces previous evidence that suggests a link between cannabis use and schizophrenic symptoms. The Lancet report referred to the earlier reports of the Swedish study and agreed that cannabis could perhaps precipitate and exacerbate schizophrenic symptoms, but it concluded that cannabis is unlikely to have caused cases of schizophrenia that would not otherwise have occurred.
	In the light of the latest reworking of the Swedish data, we cannot be quite so certain. Swedish researchers think that there may be some net addition to schizophrenic symptoms caused by cannabis smoking. However, we cannot yet accept that until there is some explanation. If that is the case, why has there not been a rise in the incidence of schizophrenia in the general population in western countries with the increased use of cannabis in recent decades? Unless and until we can explain that absence, we cannot suggest that the incidence will increase. Either way, however, we should discourage those who are susceptible to schizophrenia from taking cannabis, and discourage anybody from abusing it and using it excessively.
	There is confusion between what is immoral and what is illegal. There are many who feel instinctively that even if cannabis had no risks to health and was in no danger of acting as a gateway to hard drugs, indulgence in it—and certainly excessive indulgence—would be morally wrong. However, in our modern world there is no greater sin than to moralise. Instead of voicing their moral disapproval of the abuse of cannabis, or explaining why they believe it to be immoral, people express their disapproval by exaggerating the health risks, by reading every conceivable study suggesting that there may be serious health risks, and by fostering the two previous confusions to which I have referred, that between soft drugs and hard drugs and between use and abuse.
	I am an old-fashioned moralist. I accept that abuse of any drug to the point of intoxication is morally wrong, whether it be alcohol or anything else. It is degrading to get drunk out of one's mind. It undermines the conscience, and therefore for traditional Christian reasons it is wrong because it opens up the individual to committing far worse sins and evils. I believe that people would be better off explaining those moral consequences rather than exaggerating health and other risks.
	In any event, many things are immoral or contrary to the prevailing moral code but are not crimes. Most people consider adultery to be wrong, but we do not fine or jail adulterers. It is bizarre to let people get drunk on alcohol, which is far more likely than cannabis to lead to violence, but to criminalise them for smoking one relaxing joint. A society with better understanding of the moral law and which was more willing to express its moral concerns would be less inclined to resort to the criminal law to solve social problems.
	It is a sign of moral decadence to look to the state to uphold, to preach and to enforce what is morally right rather than to look to the individual conscience, to teachers and parents and others with moral standing to advise us on what is right and wrong. If we expect everything that is wrong to be made illegal, we shall find ourselves living in a very unpleasant society. I believe that the greater the freedoms we possess and the more responsibility we are allowed, in general the more responsibly people will behave.
	I return to my original argument that both to break the—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has had his time.

Janet Dean: I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in today's debate. When the Select Committee on Home Affairs decided to undertake an inquiry, we knew that we were treading on dangerous ground. At the end of those eight months, we understood even more the difficulty and complexity of the drugs issue.
	As the Chairman of the Select Committee said, we heard from many different organisations and individuals, and heard many different arguments. I believe that our report was balanced, but of course such a report upsets people on both sides of the argument. Members have said today that they would like cannabis in particular to be decriminalised. The Select Committee looked at whether decriminalisation would send a message to young people who do not take the drug because it is illegal, and encourage them to take it. As has been said, there are possible long-term health problems associated with taking a drug such as cannabis so, if that message is sent, more people may suffer from medical conditions in future. I suspect, for example, that we would not legalise tobacco today.
	I am pleased that the Government have accepted most of the Select Committee's recommendations, and welcome their commitment to increase funding for treatment, both inside and outside the criminal justice system. It is important that treatment should be available when people are in prison or when courts impose drug treatment and testing orders, but there should not be a perverse incentive for addicts to enter the criminal justice system to receive treatment. We should make sure that treatment is available for people when they want it. Many young people are addicted to heroin, and we see their parents at our surgeries. Not until those young people are willing to undergo treatment can their problems be addressed satisfactorily. They should receive such treatment there and then—they should not have to wait for months.
	Drug addiction is one of the evils of modern society. We all know that every community in our constituencies is affected by it, although it obviously has a greater impact in areas of deprivation. However, addiction is also a problem in market towns and villages—we can see it everywhere—and it brings distress to those communities. It degrades users and makes parents desperate. As I said, those parents come to our surgeries, and it is difficult to know how to advise them. We can give the clear advice that the Minister gave earlier and refer them to a drug addiction team to get help for their children, but they are torn between the desire to protect them and getting them to face reality. They see their once-perfect children, who were growing up as caring individuals, become deceitful and fall into criminal activity to feed their habit including, very often, stealing from their own family. Parents are faced with a choice between keeping their children in the family home and trying to protect them—but suffering that thieving—and trying to reject them, getting them to face up to their problems and seek treatment.There is no easy answer for those parents but, as I have said, it is important that treatment is available when required and that there is support for families trying to cope with that situation.
	We must aim at prevention in the first instance and our overall message must be that all drugs are harmful. However, we must be realistic, which is why I support the Committee's recommendations on downgrading cannabis and ecstasy. I know that the ecstasy issue is a difficult one, as deaths are caused by them. The overall message must be that there is a danger in taking ecstasy. That must be the fundamental message that we send out, but we must also recognise that ecstasy is not comparable to heroin, crack and cocaine—it is in a different league. We must send out a realistic message to young people, but we will not do so if we do not grade the risks properly.
	The overall message must be that all drugs are harmful. Even in relation to cannabis, we have heard hon. Members speaking about the dangers of driving or contracting cancer and possibly suffering brain damage. We have also heard it said that the Government have sent the wrong message over the past year or so. Sometimes, however, it is the media that send the wrong message; it will not necessarily be the Government who do so.
	Above all, the worst thing about drugs is addiction to heroin and cocaine. I welcome the Government's initiative to introduce innovative advertising and more measures to tackle crack cocaine, which is one of the neglected drugs in terms of treatment. I welcome the acceptance that we should tailor treatment services to the individual, including harm minimisation, needle exchange, methadone treatment and abstinence treatment where appropriate. I also welcome what my hon. Friend the Minister said about prison-to-home services, which are vital. I know of constituents who have died on getting home from prison and returning to the dose that they were taking previously.
	We must tackle drug production and dealing. There is a difference between those who supply their friends with drugs of whatever sort and the big boys who probably never take them, but cripple our communities by dealing in all sorts of drugs. We must also tackle deprivation and the lack of hope among young people. That is where the Government's policy of tackling crime and the causes of crime is important. If young people are given hope, they will be less likely to fall into the habit in the first place.
	I welcome the Government's acceptance of most of the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee. We have a long way to go and the problem will never be easy to address, but we have to tackle it in different ways.

David Cameron: I am delighted to take part in this debate.
	Helping to produce the report, and serving on the Select Committee on Home Affairs discussing and debating it, has been by far the most interesting thing that I have done in the year and a half I have been in Parliament. Everyone on the Committee genuinely tried to empty their heads of preconceptions and to look at the evidence and think about it. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who introduced the debate. He chairs the Committee admirably and tries very hard to ensure that we reach unanimity, even if we cannot always do so.
	I strongly believe that the report is the right one at the right time. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South spoke about the utter failure of drugs policy in this country over a long period. In the 1970s, there were 2,000 heroin addicts; today, there are 250,000. Cannabis use has consistently increased and 50 per cent. of young people now admit to having tried it. Last year, 3,500 of our fellow countrymen died through drug abuse—a 20 per cent. increase on a decade ago. Another health problem that is not often looked at is the fact that 300,000 people in this country have contracted hepatitis C through drug use, and one third of them are likely to die prematurely.
	Before dealing with the recommendations, let me say that I feel extremely strongly about this subject and desperately want to see a reduction in drug abuse and better paths to enable people to get out of it. If one takes a slightly progressive—or, as I like to think of it, thoughtful—view, one can sometimes be accused of being soft. I reject that utterly. Friends and people close to me have had their lives ruined by drug abuse and I want us to tackle the problem properly. That is what the report is all about.
	When we boil this report down and look at it closely, we see that its central point is that we must focus on the 250,000 problematic drug users. If we can get them into treatment, there will be a huge prize for this country. First, it would cut crime. The report estimates that 30 per cent. of property crime is committed by drug abusers, although the police in Oxford and many other towns and cities say that that is a massive underestimate. The report talks about each addict needing to steal £16,000 worth of products a year to fund their habit. I think that that, too, is a massive underestimate. If they are stealing from shops, they will often sell the products at a knock-down price. The value of the products that they need to steal is probably nearer to £40,000. Secondly, getting those people into treatment would save us a great deal of money. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said that it was pointless to send heroin users to prison, and I wholly agree with him. It is a waste of money. We must get them into treatment.
	As I said in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), I am pleased that some of what we have said has already been accepted on both sides of the House. The Government are placing a renewed emphasis on treatment, and some of the wilder targets of the drugs tsar have been cancelled. The tsar has not yet had the full Russian treatment—he has not been taken out and shot—but I sometimes think that Members on the Treasury Bench might like to lock him up, in true Russian fashion. On our side, policy has been changed—rightly—to give real emphasis to treatment. The proposals on mandatory treatment and trying to find ways of getting young people into treatment put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and the Front-Bench team have been hugely positive.
	I would like to talk about two of the report's most contentious recommendations. The first involves the prescribing of heroin—diamorphine—and the second relates to the use of safe injecting rooms. Both those recommendations have the same end in mind, which is to get people into treatment and to make that happen quickly. We have to realise that every day that an addict spends out on the streets funding their habit is a time of crime, of ill health and, possibly, of death. Many people estimate the percentage of property crime committed by drug abusers to be nearer 50 per cent. than 30 per cent., which would mean that every other time someone's house was burgled or their car broken into, it would be drug-related. This provision will be of interest to all our constituents, if we can get it right.
	I understand from the conversations that I have had with drug addicts and drugs workers that there is no single method of treatment that always works. We need to have a variety of methods. I plead with the Minister to acknowledge that the voluntary sector is terribly important in providing these services. In the old days, when all that was available was a few detox beds and a psychiatrist or a few junkie doctors, it was actually the voluntary sector organisations—such as Kaleidoscope in south London—that started to provide methadone scripts. Instead of handing out great big doses, they were handing out daily doses. They were socialising the people concerned, and talking to them to make sure that they were in contact with treatment provision. We must do that now.
	The person to whom I spoke at Kaleidoscope made the point that there is nothing magic about illegal drugs. We have to try to make treatment attractive. She said that, when we talk to someone who has tried to give up smoking or has been on a diet, they will always say that the way they did it was the best way. It is the same with drug addicts. Someone who has had a residential placement will say how powerful it was, and how they rebuilt their life through the steps process. A similar thing happens when we talk to people on methadone replacement. We need to Xlet a thousand flowers bloom", if I can put it like that. We must make treatment attractive. Think of all the money that the Government spend on getting people to give up smoking. We have to try to draw people into treatment.
	Why prescribe heroin? It has worked overseas; the evidence that the Committee heard on that was compelling. The average age of heroin addicts in this country is, tragically, still going down. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey mentioned that in other countries, such as Holland, it is going up. Furthermore, methadone is not suitable for everyone. Some very chaotic drug users need to be stabilised, and perhaps heroin is the answer for them. The proposal might also help to cut the number of drug-related deaths. The fact that 3,500 people died last year from drug overdoses shames us. Most importantly, whatever treatment is chosen—including heroin prescribing for the hardest cases—at least the people concerned are getting into treatment and making contact with the agencies and the people who can help them. This is a difficult decision for the Government, but I hope that they will make it and persevere with it, because I believe that it is the right one.
	When I first heard about the concept of safe injecting rooms, I hated it. I thought the concept of the state providing a room for someone to inject something into their veins awful, but I listened to the arguments and, in particular, to Members such as the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice), who is in her place, and the hon. Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean), who has just spoken.
	People who live in inner-city areas whose children have to step over drug paraphernalia in the streets and on housing estates deserve a break from heroin use in their communities. That takes me back to the point that safe injecting rooms at least get heroin users to a place where they can be contacted by the treatment agencies so that the work of trying to get them off drugs can start.
	The point about contact is hugely important. Everyone says that drugs are not just a crime problem. They are not just a health problem or just a problem of poverty either. They are a social problem in the true meaning of the phrase. If Members talk to anyone who has or has had a heroin addiction problem, they will find that there is always something else wrong with such people's lives. That is where the voluntary sector in particular can help to pick them up and turn them round.
	I hope that the Government will be brave. We are seeing some progress, although they are, I am afraid, sometimes fond of using tough language on subjects such as crime and asylum. This is not a time for tough language; they must just get it right. The Home Secretary called for an adult debate and I welcome that, but I did not welcome his response to the report, as he immediately ruled out one or two recommendations. We had spent hours thinking, debating, arguing and considering the evidence, but he seemed to dismiss those recommendations in a matter of minutes. Rather than rejecting them so hastily, it would have been better to spend time reflecting on them.
	I shall make a number of suggestions based on my constituency experience of talking to people who have to deal with the problems of drugs. The first is on the system of DATs, or rather DAATs, as Oxfordshire has a drug and alcohol action team, which is headed by Bill Holman. He made the point to me that the Oxford coroner does not record drug-related deaths properly, so I would be grateful if the Minister looked into that; otherwise, we shall have no baseline for the target and no way to measure it.
	The next point is on the structure of DATs. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) made a good speech in Westminster Hall about that, which I read as, sadly, I could not be present. There is a bit of confusion here. DATs are non-statutory bodies and in many cases most of the employees work for different agencies. In Oxfordshire, some are employed by the youth service, some by social services and some by the primary care trust. Although I am always against creating vast new bureaucracies, DATs need more clarity in how they are set up.
	We should consider DAT funding streams: something comes from the Department for Education and Skills, something from the youth offending team and something from the Department of Health. On the whole, we should give those bodies the money and let them get on with the job. Social services rather than the DAT tends to commission residential care places. If we are to give DATs more power and more influence, we need to let them get on with it and commission a full service of education, prevention and treatment.
	My next constituency point is on education. I would recommend to all Members that they sit at the back of a secondary school class when a drugs education programme is being conducted. I did so when a group of former addicts called Energy and Vision, which is part of the voluntary sector, was involved. It does education programmes across Oxfordshire, which are incredibly powerful. They are information based and non-judgmental, and they provide proper information for the students, who were gripped by what they were told. That, however, was not namby-pamby or soft.
	The ex-addicts described how their experimentation with drugs had led them down a dreadful path to losing their homes and friends, breaking up from their families, prison and the collapse of their lives. They had credibility and their programme had power, as they were not the men in suits referred to by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South.
	We must be frank about education. Of course we want it to reduce drug use, but reducing drug abuse is key and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) made that point with great power. We know the figures—50 per cent. of young people try certain drugs—and it is most important that they understand the real risks of their experimentation and the risks of getting into drug abuse.
	I want to make a point on policing. I met the police in Oxford, who are responsible for an active drug treatment and testing order programme and trying to get addicts into treatment. They included assistant chief constable Steve Love and Jim Trottman, who is in charge of policing in Oxford city. A point was made to me then that I consider important: I hope that the Minister will take it on board. Apparently, the police and the probation service do not always follow the same track. The police want to target the most prolific offenders and ensure that they are the subject of DTTOs, while the probation service is rewarded on the basis of the number who go through the system.
	We must also consider the speed of the process. We all know about delays in the court system. The trouble with DTTOs is the need to wait until an offender who has carried out burglaries or car crimes, but is also involved with drugs, goes to court. Could treatment, or at least being referred for treatment, be a condition of police bail? If the arrested person rejected that condition, there would be an even faster track to court.

Bob Ainsworth: The updated strategy contains a proposal to pilot refusal of bail to those who are not prepared to accept treatment. We will consider early interventions of the kind that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

David Cameron: I am pleased to hear it, and I look forward to seeing whether the system works.
	A common theme features in what has been said to me by those involved in education, by the police and by the DAAT. When things go wrong, treatment services must be available. They must be attractive, access to them must be quick, and we must ensure that they work. As others have said today, that means that there must be more places. Although residential places are not the only answer, there are not nearly enough. According to a written answer given to me, there are only 1,900 in the country, and I support the proposal of my Front-Bench team to increase the number, while retaining all the existing treatment options.
	Let me end with a plea to the Minister. This is an incredibly difficult subject. It is impossible to control from Whitehall the number of drugs that will be taken, what new drugs will appear and what will happen to the figures. If the figures do not do the right thing, I ask the Government not to return to retribution and war on drugs. That has been tried, and we all know that it does not work.
	I think we are making progress. Of course, anyone who takes part in a debate like this is in danger of being called soft. Following the report's publication I was introduced in this way by a local radio station: XNow we will hear from a Conservative MP who thinks that heroin addicts should be given prescriptions for ecstasy". That was a tough one; it was difficult for me to explain my way out of it.
	I think, though, that if we get this right we will have a chance to cut crime, save money, improve the health of the country and even save lives. That is definitely worth a brickbat or two.

Bridget Prentice: I am pleased to be able to contribute, and I will try to be brief.
	Let me make a confession to my colleagues on the Select Committee, and to the Chairman in particular. I was a relatively new member when the Committee decided to look at the Government's drug policy. In fact, I was an entirely new member: it was at the first sitting that we drew up the topics that we wanted to investigate.
	I remember the occasion well. When a colleague suggested that we investigate drugs, my immediate reaction—which I did not share with the Committee—was XWhy? Do we not all know where we stand? Drugs are a bad thing; we are all against them; people who take them are stupid or inadequate or easily led, and we know that those who sell them are horrible criminals who ought to be banged up for as long as possible". At any rate, my views were close to that. I was not looking forward to an investigation that seemed to have no real purpose. I had already made up my mind: I took a very hard line, and no one was going to make me deviate from it.
	After a thorough and at times difficult series of evidence sessions, I was forced to reconsider. I still think all drugs are bad and I still think drug pushers should be given the heaviest of sentences, but I no longer believe that we have been tackling the scourge of drugs in our society in the best way possible. So I would say to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), who has just left the Chamber, that I do not mind being called radical, but I draw the line at being called liberal, for a variety of reasons.

Simon Hughes: Not related to this debate.

Bridget Prentice: Indeed.
	The most obvious failure in the Government's drugs policy is that young people, who are the customers of the drug dealers, do not believe in the current strictures. That is not to say that they do not believe that drugs are bad for them or that they are wrong; they simply do not believe the message as we present it. They have seen their friends take cannabis and survive; they have even heard the arguments about the beneficial aspects of some drugs and they do not consider it to be such a big deal. They also know about the downside of alcohol and tobacco, so they think that those of us wearing suits are just a tad hypocritical when we go over the top about cannabis. Indeed, had we known earlier what we know now about tobacco we might have banned it. I believe that the Government's change of tack on cannabis is right. It should remain illegal, but it should not be such a serious offence as it was, and it should not be classified the same as harder drugs. That change is logical and understandable and is much more likely to be accepted and understood. If a law is consistently flouted, it becomes useless.
	We also felt that a similar change should be made in respect of ecstasy. I heard my hon. Friend the Minister say why he believes that cannot happen. We thought long and hard, but we felt that the evidence from parents and others persuaded us that ecstasy should be reclassified. The Government have set out guidelines for clubbing, so they clearly realise that ecstasy is different from heroin and cocaine.
	Heroin and crack cocaine gave rise to the most frightening problem, which was examined in probably the most difficult and stressful Select Committee sittings: namely, whether those giving evidence were users or whether their families had suffered. Initially, the families suffer most. They have goods stolen from their homes; they have to face the shame and the blame in their local communities when the addict steals from others to pay for his habit; they experience the despair and degradation of witnessing the drug take control of their son, daughter, brother or sister; and, finally, they suffer the sorrow and pain when a son or brother dies from an overdose or from using impure drugs. We would all agree that, for parents, watching a child die a painful and horrible death that they can do nothing to prevent must be a most harrowing experience. The parents who have been mentioned today, Tina Williams and Fulton Gillespie, helped me understand why we had to change the policy. I believe that it is right for the Government to concentrate their resources on the 250,000 or so chaotic drug users and at the same time bring down the full force of the law on those who traffic drugs and prey on those drug abusers.
	I read the report by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) on heroin use. It is a brave report and I understand many of the pleas that he makes. I was particularly concerned by his constituents' negative response to the National Treatment Agency. I hope that that is not typical around the country.
	An even greater concern is that there are simply not enough agencies around, which is why it is right to concentrate on prevention and treatment. Some GPs have little understanding of or sympathy with drug users and need training to ensure that they approach the problem more positively and help young people. That is why drug abusers are often alienated from their GPs. They are very reluctant to come before certain professionals because they do not believe that they will get an appropriate response. I therefore hope that the Government's changes in respect of prevention and treatment will make a big difference.
	In telling us about the lack of available treatment, Tina Williams described her son, who is a heroin addict:
	XHe has no veins left in his body; all his neck veins went; all his groin veins went. However, it did not make any difference, there was still a five month waiting list. There is no such thing as an emergency."
	I do hope that the philosophy that now underpins the Government's strategy will ensure that Tina Williams' experience will not be repeated.
	I want to underline the plea from the Chairman of the Select Committee for at least a pilot on injecting rooms. The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) described the situation in inner cities, parks and open spaces, and on the landings of tower blocks. Finding needles is not the way for young people to learn that drugs are a bad thing, and I hope that the Government will look again at the issue.
	The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said that the original strategy was too ambitious, but in my view it was simply wrong, and the drugs tsar has to take some responsibility for that. The Government should probably be commended for recognising that they were wrong, and for changing course. No one is ignoring the dangers of drugs; it is those dangers that have led the Committee to reach its conclusions. I did not expect the Government to agree with every one of its recommendations—much as I would have liked them to—but I hope that the new strategy will be simply the first update, and that they will return to this issue periodically. In doing so, I hope that they will continue to use our report as a reference point.
	I shall finish by briefly quoting Tina Williams again, because it is the families of drug users who really feel the brunt of the problems that arise:
	XIf you speak to the family, everybody is affected; my grandson is affected as are his brothers and sisters. There have been no holidays for five years. The home has just really stood there, it has stood still because time has stood still for me. Just like any parent, if you have a child and that child is sick, you drop everything to try and pick that child up. That is why I feel so sad for people who have lost their children and for people who are still dying. In this country, three people die a day from addiction"—
	drug addiction—
	Xand I think it can all be avoided. If the services were in place, then death could be avoided."
	I hope that the Government's updated drug strategy will give Ms Williams hope, and bring about fulfilment of it.

Jonathan Djanogly: The failure of the Government's drugs strategy to date means that our country still faces a very significant problem that affects the whole of our society—the wealthiest, the poorest, and everyone in between. Indeed, I think it highly unlikely that anyone of my generation does not know of someone who has succumbed to the horrors of drug addiction.
	This is not just an urban problem. Now, our towns and villages have almost instant access to heroin, cannabis and—increasingly—crack cocaine. That is certainly the case in my own constituency, where there are almost weekly reports in the local papers of drug-related incidents, be it cannabis smoking underneath the skateboard ramps in Godmanchester, or heroin raids in Huntingdon. Indeed, almost every local youngster whom I speak to on the topic knows pretty much instantly where they can purchase drugs, whether or not they use them personally.
	While it is clear that the Government have failed to meet almost every one of their targets for controlling illegal drugs, we need to look forward. However, I do not see enough in the new proposals to suggest that we are tackling the root of the problem, which, to my mind, is ultimately a question of addressing cultural values. However, I appreciate the fact that we are having this debate, and I welcome the Select Committee's proactive stance. I freely admit that I am no expert on drugs. However, I recognise that the issue is one of the most important social matters in my constituency. It is essential that hon. Members make it their business to educate themselves about drugs. In that way, we will be able to deal with the enforcement and medical-related factors, and understand the cultural implications.
	For most drug takers, drug use is very much bound up with the concept of glamour. They want to be part of a clandestine counter culture, and to be alternative. Education, awareness and, above all, open debate are vital. Discussing the implications of drug use in a wider context would go some way towards breaking down drugs' attractive, private-club aspect and, therefore, their so-called glamour.
	Describing crack cocaine and heroin as glamorous is repulsive to me, but the word provides an accurate description of the way many young people approach them. Many people will remember the advertisement that used the image of a young woman crouched dead on the floor with a needle in her arm. Some will have found that shocking, but most young people have been hardened by screen violence, and seduced by heroin chic in the fashion world and films such as XTrainspotting".
	I should note that I do not want to denigrate that film, which portrayed reality and showed how heroin can cause people to die sad and lonely deaths choking on their own vomit. However, it also showed how some young people—living on sink council estates or bored in some idyllic country village—can see heroin as a glamorous escape from their everyday environments.
	The advertisement to which I have referred failed because it concentrated on the damage that drugs can cause the people who use them, and ignored the wider implications for society, dependants and families. The truly unacceptable aspect of addiction is the destruction of families, and the way in which the houses of family members and neighbours are looted for drugs money.
	We should aim to remove the glamour from drugs. We should explain the personal impact that they have on users, but it is also vital that we make children aware at a very early age of the impact that addicts have on the people around them. We must make children aware of their responsibilities towards other people. Instead of showing children pictures of overdosing addicts, I think that they should be exposed to pictures of the victims of drug-fuelled crime, of grieving parents and HIV-infected babies, and of old people on hospital trolleys waiting for a teenager to have his stomach pumped.
	The Government's proposal to reclassify cannabis from class B to class C is a mistake. Leaving the technicalities aside, what message is being given to young people? Is it that the Government will take responsibility, and say that using cannabis is wrong and will be punished? No. Is it that the Government will take responsibility and say that cannabis is acceptable, that they will identify dosages and protect people from spiked dosages? No, I do not get that message either.
	I believe that the message from the Government is that they want to make no comment on cannabis use. As long as people do not sell cannabis, their use of the drug has nothing to do with the Government. That is the worst of both worlds. As the experience on Lambeth shows, it will lead to a massive increase in the drug's use, and in effect hand control of the situation over to drug dealers.

Paul Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jonathan Djanogly: I should love to, but I am severely restricted for time, and other hon. Members wish to speak.
	The position is the same for hard drugs. A few weeks ago, I sat in on a prison drugs rehabilitation group run by the excellent organisation RAPt. I learned a lot from the young men in the group. Normally, heroin addicts are treated by being given methadone. Most of the men in the group had been on 10 or more methadone courses. They all said that the courses had done absolutely nothing for them.
	With respect to those hon. Members who have spoken in support of the alternative, those young men did not talk about swapping methadone for prescription drugs or about having access to legal shooting galleries. They all said that the only effective treatment was rehabilitation.

David Cameron: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Jonathan Djanogly: I would love to, but I cannot.
	Rehabilitation is slower, more intensive and more expensive, but it works. The experience made me realise that the policy advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), of increasing rehabilitation tenfold—we can argue about exactly what tenfold means—and giving young people a clear choice between rehabilitation or prison is the right one. I urge the Government to go down that road.
	More than 60 per cent. of prisoners in many of our jails take heroin. Drug testing is, if anything, making matters worse—prisoners are switching from cannabis to heroin, which stays in the body for a shorter period. A generation of prisoners is leaving our jails with huge drug debts that force them to reoffend immediately to pay off their debts and feed their habit. In the prison that I visited, only 5 per cent. of inmates had access to rehab, and how grateful they were for being given a new chance in life. That figure must be increased.
	Likewise, although excellent work is being carried out in my constituency by groups such as DASH—Drug and Alcohol Service Huntingdon—and DIAL Druglink to tackle drug-related crime, provide counselling, develop employment opportunities and educate children, there are not enough available funds for them. Huntingdonshire primary care trust, with a population of 148,000, provides 1,600 structured counselling sessions a year. However, it calculates that it needs four times that number of consultant sessions to be effective. It is also concerned at the lack of Government understanding of the practicalities for local areas in implementing the Government's compulsory 200-page long treatment notes, given the inadequate space and resources to operate it. It is all very well to come out with new strategies and 200-page guidance notes, but the Government must appreciate that they need paying for, and that is not happening at present.
	Finally, I note that not enough is being said here today or generally about alcohol abuse. Several hon. Members have mentioned the connection between drugs, driving and alcohol. There is a lack of clarity surrounding the Government's policy on how drugs and alcohol policy combine. My local PCT has been told that drugs funding is only to be used for drugs misuse, although many drug addicts also have alcohol problems. The two cannot be detached. I ask the Government to look at the issue again.
	If this debate is the start of a new mindset for the Government in acting on the massive implications of drugs in our society, it has my full support and I welcome it. However, I do not feel that what I have heard in the Government's proposals so far will be adequate to solve the problem.

Adrian Bailey: I welcome this report and the amount of money that the Government have invested in it. I have always felt that public money invested in an anti-drugs strategy, providing that it is effective, is one of the most cost-effective ways of using such money.
	Inevitably, following the report of the Select Committee, the debate has been dominated by the issues involving the appropriate level of criminality of various classes of drugs and rehabilitation. In the short time available to me, I want to focus on effectively breaking into the drugs distribution network. Labour Members agree that all drugs are dangerous, whatever their criminal classification, and that they are promoted and marketed by a network of criminals who are ruthlessly efficient and very effective. There is a real danger that however effective our rehabilitation programmes, this criminal operation will continue to recruit new people to drug-taking, irrespective of our propaganda initiatives.
	The Assets Recovery Agency is mentioned in the report. Unfortunately, I feel that its potential in combating drugs use is being underplayed. When the Minister commented on the confiscation of criminal assets, he did not mention that the ARA, set up under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, can target people with a criminal lifestyle, such as drug dealers, even though there is not sufficient proof to prosecute them in a criminal court. Currently, that procedure is under-used.
	After all, a drug dealer is fairly obvious. Such people tend to drive flash cars and wear gold chains and designer suits. They are certainly not renowned for squirreling their money away in a stakeholder pension. They like to cut a dash in their local, criminal, youth-oriented community, where they act as negative role models for marginalised young people who want to get in on the act.
	It is essential that we tackle the drug dealers. By identifying them and confiscating their assets, the ARA could remove one of the strongest incentives for taking up that activity. The agency could knock out a link of the chain that spreads drugs and the misery associated with them.
	I realise that many members of the Home Affairs Select Committee have spoken in the debate. I am a member of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. We visited Dublin and talked to members of the Irish Criminal Assets Bureau, which does a job similar to that of the ARA. Ireland has a population of only 3 million and the drugs market is much more rudimentary, yet the CAB has achieved remarkable success. Over the past six years, it has obtained £72 million in confiscated assets from criminals in Ireland—a not inconsiderable sum.
	In this country, previous legislation on such matters has not worked effectively. A report from the Cabinet Office performance and innovation unit, published before the establishment of the ARA, stated:
	XSpecially tasked law enforcement officers struggle to investigate the financial aspects of crime to support this effort, but their effectiveness is limited by their numbers and . . . training."
	If the legislation is to be effective, we need to increase considerably the number of officers engaged in asset recovery.

Bob Ainsworth: I agree with my hon. Friend, but if he feels that we have not yet made a hit of the ARA that is because the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 only became law in the summer, so it is not yet fully established. We have trained 86 extra financial investigators for individual police forces and set up a centre of excellence—so watch this space. We fully intend to use all the powers in the Act.

Adrian Bailey: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. To a certain extent, they pre-empt my next few points. However, when we interviewed the officials who were setting up the ARA, they said that the estimated number of staff was 100. That compares with 44 in the CAB so, if we bear in mind the fact that the population of Eire is 3 million while that of the UK is 60 million, the evidence that we took in April this year suggests that there is no great appreciation of the potential importance of the role of the agency, despite my hon. Friend's reassuring words.
	I hope that the Home Office will take this seriously because it is a way in which we can make a significant impact. We will emerge with a social and financial virtuous circle. As half the money will be put into a recovered assets fund that can be recycled to deal with drug dealing, the more successful we are, the more money we earn to invest in the very processes that have been successful in the first place. There is a financial benefit and there are social benefits that accrue from tackling drugs.
	In my constituency, there is a communities against drugs scheme, and I want to emphasise its success. There have been mutterings—I say no more than that—that if local authorities have not spent the money allocated to them in this financial year, they will have it reclaimed. My constituency was slow to get going, but there is now a range of initiatives that are proving effective, including four effectively targeted police operations in which 45 people were arrested, £50,000 was confiscated and £12,000 worth of drugs was obtained. There is a drugs information line that has had 100 calls, as well as parents support groups and school initiatives. I plead with the Minister not to be precipitate in removing any money from such local initiatives because my local authority has ideas, is working on them and will use the money effectively.

Angela Watkinson: I was a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee when it investigated drugs policy. Two weeks before the investigation began, the Home Secretary informed the Committee of his intention to downgrade cannabis from class B to class C. At that moment, I knew that whatever proved to be the outcome of the Committee's deliberations, cannabis would indeed be downgraded to class C; a serious misjudgment, in my view.
	I pay tribute to the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) for his great patience in dealing with the many amendments that I tabled to the Select Committee report. He will know that I felt unable to add my name to those of the rest of the Committee on the final report. The Committee's investigations, spanning several months, polarised the debate into two schools of thought; the relative importance of harm reduction versus prevention.
	Important though harm reduction undoubtedly is, it cannot stand alone as a policy and is doomed to failure without stringent prevention measures, backed up by enforcement. The notion that treatment can be provided to any existing drug addict who either wants it or is prescribed it as part of a criminal sentence, plus unlimited provision for the constant stream of new addicts, is a fantasy and is unaffordable. That is why I contend that of all the strategies available for reducing drug abuse in this country, prevention is by far the most important.
	We must prevent the young people of today from becoming the drug addicts of tomorrow and swelling the ranks of those already addicted if the amount of treatment needed is ever to become manageable.
	There are many who would say that drug use should be a matter of individual freedom and choice and, indeed, if people were able to take drugs in isolation and without harming anyone but themselves, there might be an argument for that. The tragic fact is that it is not just the individual who suffers. It is also their family, friends, work colleagues and the wider community in terms of drug-related crime and benefit dependency. This is a freedom too far, where the freedom of the individual impinges on the freedom of too many others.
	The metropolitan trendy elite might find it amusing to take drugs socially, but they can afford to check in to an equally trendy and elite clinic for treatment whenever they need it. How unlike the residents of council estates who are no longer able to hold down a job because their drug dependence has robbed them of the ability to observe the normal disciplines of everyday life; the motivation to get out of bed in the morning, to arrive on time at work, to carry out the duties of their job and to interact with other people in a socially acceptable way. They so often also lose their moral fibre and turn to crime in the overwhelming need to meet the cost of their drug habits. However, it is not a fair or complete picture that paints drug addicts as simply victims and places all the blame on the dealers.
	People who have disregarded all the available education and advice on the results of drug taking must, to varying degrees and depending on circumstances such as their age, take their share of responsibility for that decision, alongside the dealers. The market is demand led. That is why prevention is so important. Proper prevention, linked to proper education in schools and colleges, would reduce demand at one end of the market, while harm reduction reduces it at the other.
	The main focus of new drugs policies is on the treatment of existing users of heroin, cocaine and crack cocaine. Those hard drugs do serious damage to the physical and emotional health of the user. However, there is overwhelming evidence—both medical and from the police—that the majority of hard drug users start on cannabis. That is not the same as saying that all cannabis users progress—I suppose that Xregress" would be the more appropriate word—to heroin and cocaine, but it is fair to say that most hard drug users arrive there via the cannabis route. That is why downgrading cannabis is wrong. It gives out entirely the wrong message, especially to young people, that cannabis is harmless, legal or both.

Paul Flynn: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Angela Watkinson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I will not because of the lack of time.
	The mind-altering qualities of cannabis are so complex that, despite momentous medical advances, doctors still do not fully understand them. Some 75 per cent. of young people who suffer psychotic illness have a history of cannabis abuse. Even people in robust mental health suffer negative effects from the odd joint. Those effects may include a short-term lack of resolve, a lesser ability to work, drive a car or operate machinery and an unwillingness to make a physical or mental effort.
	Beyond that, there is an unknown percentage with a mental or chemical predisposition for psychotic illness, and cannabis can trigger altered moods, confusion, delusions or even hallucinations in those people. Some ethic communities in which cannabis use is endemic suffer hugely increased levels of psychosis—up to 20 times greater than the general population.
	Reducing the number of cannabis users would, in turn, reduce the numbers of new heroin and cocaine addicts, thereby reducing demand. Any relaxation of the law that makes drugs more accessible or reduces penalties will result, inevitably, in increased use and marketing, and be counter-productive to a national policy of reducing drug abuse.
	The Government publication XSafer Clubbing" contains guidelines on the safer use of ecstasy in nightclubs. The formal acceptance of drug taking as an integral part of a night out is a classic example of the prevention versus harm reduction argument. Such harm reduction includes the provision of chill-out rooms and making drinking water available, giving the impression that ecstasy will be safe if water is drunk. In fact, drinking too much water can be just as harmful as not drinking enough.
	The role of the police is now reduced to minimising use and co-ordinating with harm reduction policies. What does that mean in practice? In effect, it means non-interference and acceptance. To prevent more fatalities, we should aim for co-operation between police, nightclub owners and local licensing authorities in working towards drug-free clubs. What we have instead is capitulation on the grounds that offenders are too numerous to deal with under current police resources. If the same policy were suggested for burglary, for example, which is equally prolific, there would be a public outcry.
	A drugs policy focused on harm reduction for hard-drug users is destined to fail because of the ever-increasing demand for expensive treatment, which has to compete for national health service funding with the whole spectrum of health issues.

Bob Ainsworth: rose—

Angela Watkinson: I am sorry; I am short of time, and I am reading as fast as I can.
	The national drug strategy, published on Tuesday, seems to interpret harm reduction as meaning making it easier for people to take drugs and considering making them free of charge and freely available. That will be an extraordinary policy for any Government to introduce. It involves a removal of sanction or any deterrent and would amount to an acceptance of drug habits and effortless access. What message do the Government think that that would send out? It is like saying, XDon't worry, if you choose to take illegal drugs and develop a habit that ruins your health and your finances, the taxpayer will look after you without so much as a slap on the wrist." It amounts to a total removal of accountability and personal responsibility, and it will do nothing to reduce the number of drug addicts.
	The Government must put much greater emphasis on prevention. The first essential in prevention policy is proper drugs education. Some of the literature that is currently in use, which passes for education, is information of the most undesirable kind. Lifeline, a Manchester-based charity, in a booklet about cannabis, shows how a joint is rolled. The first piece of advice in a section entitled
	XHow to survive your parents discovering you're a Drug User"
	is,
	XDon't get caught in the first place."
	Other Lifeline publications are full of four-letter words, shockingly graphic illustrations or instructions on how to inject. One of the favourite phrases is Xinformed choice". Anyone advocating Xinformed choice" for other widespread illegal activities, such as speeding or shoplifting, would be severely censured. Why should it be different with drugs? Even if they were properly informed about drugs, and most are not, there should be no choice. Drugs are illegal. Anyway, children are not mature enough to choose. They are not miniature adults. They should never be put in the position of making critical life decisions. In 2000, DrugScope, our largest drug charity, distributed a booklet on cannabis in its XWhat and Why" series. One of the illustrations shows a young man in the midst of a crop of cannabis plants, wearing a cap that says, "Have fun, Take care". What sort of message does that send to our children?
	Harm reduction education does not tackle drugs; it accommodates them. Ofsted inspections must start to address that problem. The majority of teenagers do not use any illegal drugs, and never have done. The biggest weapon that we have in prevention is normalisation and helping those under pressure to see the truth: that their abstention from illegal drugs and tobacco is the norm at any age of childhood, adolescence or adulthood.
	The problem is vast in scope, and is a great challenge to the Government, but in making hard drug taking easier and downgrading cannabis—the drug that so often leads to a hard drug habit—the national drug strategy is defeatist and counterproductive. The additional funding allocated to tackling the problem will be as effective as trying to fill a bath without putting in the plug. Prevention is that plug, and it must be given much higher priority. The war on drugs has not been lost; it has never been waged.

Brian Iddon: If somebody had told me in 1997, when I came to the House, that we would have such a debate just five years hence, I would not have believed them. Only one or two people in the House at that stage were willing to put their heads above the parapet and suggest some of the ideas that have been accepted by the Government recently. We were regarded, if you will pardon the expression, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as crackpots.
	I am therefore very pleased to take part in the debate today, and I congratulate the Government on the radical steps that they are prepared to take. Clearly, the current policies were not working, radical thinking was necessary, and development of the policy was essential. That is what we have seen in the last few months. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee and all the members of that Committee on their hard work in taking evidence and producing an excellent report, which came on top of the report by the Police Foundation, whose committee was chaired by Lady Runciman.
	Not a great deal of time remains, so I shall concentrate on a matter that has not been mentioned in today's debate. Many organisations have written to me in my capacity as chairman of the all-party group on drugs misuse, and I shall start by addressing the question of the guidance notes in a recent consultation on an amendment by section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 to section 8(d) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Following the Wintercomfort case in Cambridge, I raised the possible consequences in a debate in this place on 9 November last year. Since then, guidance notes have been circulated for consultation and section 8(d) is just about to be amended. In fact, the consultation period ended on 8 November this year.
	Several organisations are concerned about some of the proposals. Previously, it was illegal for organisations to allow cannabis and prepared opium to be used on their premises. The pattern of drugs misuse since 1971 has moved on and it is admitted that future legislation needs to cover heroin, cocaine and crack, amphetamines, LSD, ecstasy and so on. The reason stated for the change in the regulations is that the police need powers to deal with the closed drug markets, mainly the crack houses and, in particular, the crack houses in London.
	Section 8(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 already applies to the supply of all controlled drugs on premises, and it has been used. Indeed, a number of authorities in London—for example, Camden, Lambeth and Hackney—have developed policies to deal with crack houses quite efficiently.
	Unlike heroin, which is a depressant and for which substitute drugs are available, cocaine either as the salt or the base, which is otherwise known as crack, is a serious stimulant that can make its users extremely aggressive, and no substitute drug is available. Cocaine is the biggest difficulty that we now face in the drug market.
	Outside London, cocaine was not a great problem until recently, but concern is growing in large cities, such as Manchester, and even in places such as Bolton, which is part of greater Manchester. The supply of cocaine in the north is being accelerated by the fact that flights from the Caribbean rim now come into Manchester airport. Swallowers or mules—call them what we will—now come into Manchester airport in the same way as they come into Schiphol airport.
	I was at Schiphol a few weeks ago, watching the treatment of drugs swallowers. Fifteen drug offenders are arrested each day at the airport and the authorities admit that they miss many more. Forty people came in on a flight from the Caribbean rim recently and they were all carrying up to a kilogram of cocaine in their gastro-intestinal tract.
	Organisations working in drug treatment and those working with the homeless, in particular, feel that the proposed changes to the law will be unworkable if they are enacted and will be detrimental to drugs users, voluntary organisations and the public at large. It is feared that the changes will result in an increased number of homeless people on the streets, and nearly all of them will have serious drug problems. They will be unable to access accommodation for a long time and support services will not be readily available to them.
	The guidance notes require those who know that drugs are being used on premises to contact the police as soon as possible. I submit to my hon. Friend the Minister that that alone might result in a lack of trust between the homeless people with serious drug problems and the organisations trying to help them. Organisations also fear that police forces will apply the law inconsistently across the country, although there is the backstop of the Crown Prosecution Service.
	Agencies whose aim is to get drug users off the streets and stabilised before treatment is possible are particularly concerned by the new regulations, although the Government admit that special measures will have to be made available for the people who welcome in serious drug addicts. However, the proposed consultation document contains no mention of the paraphernalia that drug users use to inject themselves or of the sharps bins that will be required on the premises. Some clarification of that aspect is necessary.
	Surely we should welcome it if all serious drug users who live on the streets come inside and at least stabilise themselves, even if they do not offer themselves up for the treatments that will be made available much wider than hitherto. It must be recognised that the only chance of survival for a small but growing cohort of very chaotic drug users is long-term maintenance on heroin or diamorphine. So I am pleased that the Government are to extend the prescribing of clinically pure heroin.
	Although the draft guidance notes enable police to take into account harm reduction factors when deciding whether to prosecute, it will remain illegal to allow substance misuse on premises, whatever the motivation. A decision to act illegally would have serious consequences on the charitable status of many organisations.
	The organisations are also concerned that if they are caught in the act of helping someone with a serious drug problem and are prosecuted under the regulations, they will lose their insurance. So organisations that help homeless people with serious drug problems face the risk of going out of business.
	There are curious anomalies, too, which I hope the Minister will consider. Although allowing the use of cannabis on premises will carry the maximum penalty of five years imprisonment once it is reclassified, the user's offence will carry a maximum penalty of only two years. Who would want to report a drug overdose on their premises if the police are likely to prosecute under the amended regulations? That might encourage people whose friends have overdosed on the premises to remove the body to avoid prosecution.
	If enacted in full, the amended regulations might affect parents who buy their offspring heroin so that they can treat them at home. Registered social landlords, such as housing associations, and even private landlords are fearful of the new regulations and may not let drug users take tenancies with them. I urge the Secretary of State and the Minister to consider the proposals in the light of all the comments that organisations have made.

Pete Wishart: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the ongoing debate on what is probably the most intractable social issue confronting our society. Many hon. Members have said that drugs are a massive problem, and there is great concern and anxiety in every community the length and breadth of the UK about them. If we asked the public to name the social issues that most concern them, any survey would put drugs in the top five. The public are desperate for solutions and desperate to make progress.
	The public have also heard it all before. There are a few significant differences in the report, but I have a sense of déjà vu. I am a new Member, but I have heard all the arguments before. That might have something to do with the fact that before I came to the House, I served as a director of a drugs charity that considered drugs issues. I was also in the Scotland Against Drugs campaign team. I have, perhaps, overdosed on drugs strategies in the past few years. Although there have been countless strategies, approaches and fresh starts, I am desperately trying to think of one that has made any significant progress on dealing with the drugs menace in our society.
	We have set targets that have never been met. We have employed drugs tsars who go off in a huff after achieving absolutely nothing. We have set out new approaches that have been met by a tidal wave of new and emerging problems. What has underpinned successive strategies in the past three decades, as the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) said, is our unshattering belief in prohibition—that by keeping drugs illegal we will keep people off drugs. If we look at the history of those strategies, we must come to the desperate conclusion that they have been less than successful. Drug use has spiralled almost out of control under prohibition. Drug taking among young people is routine. A black economy has emerged, with associated gangsterism and petty crime, which creates havoc in many of our hard-pressed communities. If prohibition has underpinned so many of our strategies, the drugs war has been its popular cause.
	The drugs war is the Vietnam of our social issues because there are so many correlations between them. The drugs war is fought on uncertain terrain, with limited intelligence against an elusive and determined adversary. Like the Vietnam war, the drugs war is well and truly lost. The only people who would go over the top in the drugs war are the Conservative Front Bench and a few of their fellow travellers on the Conservative Benches.
	We have continued to overlook the central relationship between drugs and young people. Recognition of that has been lacking during the debate. We still do not understand why young people take drugs. We have had drugs within our society for about 30 or 40 years. As a society, we are relatively experienced in dealing with drugs issues. However, we have learned little from that experience. After 30 or 40 years, we do not know why certain groups of young people take certain drugs. Why is that? The answer is that we have never bothered to ask them in a proper scientific and rational way.
	Surely it would be the most obvious thing in the world to ask people why they take drugs and what benefits they think that they get from their consumption. Instead of engaging young people in a proper and constructive debate about their drug use, we bombard them with propaganda. We tell them that essentially drugs are bad for them, that we must educate them off drugs and that they must say no. We try to frighten them off drugs.
	Some of the education initiatives probably have had success. I believe that they have probably saved quite a few people from pursuing a career in drugs. However, such propaganda has acted also as a macabre recruiting sergeant for drugs. The propaganda bombardment makes drugs seem dangerous and exciting and they then relate to the morbidity that especially young and middle teenagers experience. We tend to deploy the present strategy because in our adult debate about drugs we like a prescriptive solution. We like targets and strategies. However, that is a million miles away from the debate that young people have about drugs. Young people do not start to engage with our debate and they do not understand it, as we do not understand their debate. All that young people want is to have a good time and to get high.
	As well as young people not understanding our debate about drugs, they could not care a whit about the legal status of drugs. If that legal status had any effect or any impact, we would see that in terms of ecstasy, which is a class A drug. If someone is caught in possession of ecstasy, or worse still caught dealing in it, he or she could face a lengthy prison sentence. He or she could face a considerable fine. The result would be a criminal record. However, on any given Saturday evening, about a quarter of a million ecstasy tablets are consumed. So much for the possibility of securing a lengthy prison sentence or a massive fine as a means to depress demand. Legal sanctions are nothing but a passing nuisance for most young people and a source of part of the buzz for others. Such was the fear of the law that even prospective Conservative Front-Benchers smoked their joints without fear of possible repercussions.
	Prohibition has been less than a success, but I say to those who advocate legalisation or decriminalisation that those approaches would probably be even worse. Prohibition has not worked and has not underpinned our strategies, but there is no reason to suggest that legalisation would fare any better. We need to focus on the greatest killer of all drugs, the drug that causes us the greater number of problems and poses the greatest associated health risk, and that is alcohol. We know that alcohol has almost a monopoly on the legal drugs market. It is a good example of what would happen if drugs became legal. New products would be developed. Manufacturers of alcoholic drinks compete with one another to try to secure new markets to try to entice new customers. In the past decade, the industry has been especially successful in attracting new customers. We have seen the coming of alcopops for new entrants.

Paul Flynn: I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman's speech enormously. Does he recall that during the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s, the form of alcohol concerned was distilled spirit, the most concentrated and deadly form of alcohol that killed many people because they could not control the alcohol content? Illegal drugs are in the hands of criminals and they are being sold in their most dangerous form. If there is a system of licensed regulation, the likelihood is that much weaker forms of the drugs would be available.

Pete Wishart: I am making the point that if we introduce illegal drugs to a legal market, we may see legal drugs competing for that youth market. Manufacturers will try to develop new products to entice young entrants to the marketplace. As well as having alcopops, we might have cannabis candies or ecstasy allsorts. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that that would be a health disaster. Prohibition has not been a success, but legalisation would make matters 10 times worse.
	Hon. Members have looked at third ways to solve other problems, so I propose a third way to tackle illegal drugs. To their credit, the Government are crawling towards that, however ham-fisted their approach. We need reclassification to be realistic and credible, especially for young people. It is nonsense to include ecstasy in the same category as heroin and cocaine—that exaggerates the danger of ecstasy but diminishes the danger of heroin and cocaine—but it does not make sense to include it in the same category as amphetamines and barbiturates, as that has the reverse effect. What is wrong with broadening the classifications? Why can we not have more drugs categories, which would make more sense than current classifications?
	I said that the Government's approach to drugs is ham-fisted because I still do not know what they want to achieve. Throughout the UK, there is confusion about the Government's strategy. In the Criminal Justice Bill, a great hokey-cokey is going on—one foot is in on the reclassification of cannabis, but one foot is out, as the Government want increased tariffs for class C offences. No wonder no one knows what is going on. It is almost possible to believe that the Government will lead us to the top of the hill on decriminalisation only to take us all the way down again. It is incumbent on them to tell us what on earth is going on.
	If there is confusion in England, there is even more in Scotland. Drug laws remain reserved to Westminster, but no consideration is given to the fact that we have our own legal system in Scotland, as well as our own policing arrangements. As for changing drugs laws, the Scottish Police Federation has said that the downgrading of cannabis to class C would make little practical difference. We do not have a system of cautions in Scotland, so people who are found in possession of small quantities of cannabis will still be reported to the procurator fiscal. The change in the law makes no sense to Scotland. I am disappointed that not one Labour Back Bencher from Scotland is in the Chamber tonight. Are they not interested at all in drug laws? It is a disgrace that not one of those 56 Members are here tonight.
	In conclusion, I congratulate the Government on attempting to unravel the whole drugs package. There is not one drug problem, just as there is not one solution, and they are beginning to realise that. I welcome reclassification—as early as 1997, the Scottish National party suggested that route. Anyone looking at the issue of drugs will agree that the available resources should be targeted on the drugs that cause the most harm—heroin and cocaine. Harm reduction is the sensible approach, but for goodness' sake, the Government must ensure that they achieve clarity in their approach or the strategy will go the same way as the many others before it—forgotten and irrelevant.

Dari Taylor: I warmly welcome the updated drugs strategy, and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and his Committee on their report. It is a robust and valuable contribution, and has opened up the debate.
	My office, too, has been looking at the problems faced by drug addicts—we have been talking to them and doing some research which, frankly, has been distressing. The average age of the addicts we spoke to was 22. Ninety per cent. of them had no educational qualifications and 80 per cent. left school before completing their education; 60 per cent. had suffered a family breakdown or serious family bereavement. All of them had been on soft drugs, which they had used before going on to heroin. Most were addicted to more than one drug, not just heroin. Several of them were using crack cocaine and emphatically told my researcher, Declan McHugh, and me that after using crack they used heroin to bring them down. Their situation is therefore extremely distressing.
	More than 60 per cent. of those addicts admitted to committing a crime to feed their habit, and more than 50 per cent. said that they had lost their job as a consequence. All of them were unemployed. More than 30 per cent. had been in a state care home. They were tragic cases, feeling that no one wanted them then and that no one wants them now—that was a desperate thing to come to terms with. Many of them said that they no longer got a buzz from heroin and that that had gone a long time ago. They said that they simply needed heroin and that without a fix, they began to rattle and could not survive. Our research told us clearly that young people use this stuff out of desperation. Sometimes they start because it is a bit of fun or because their friends are doing it, but they soon become controlled by it and desperate to get away from it.
	If the policy is to be effective—I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has been very warm to my constituents who have spoken to him about the issue on a number of occasions—it has to start with what we know about the problem of use of drugs. If we do not understand that, we simply will not get it right. When we did our research, people constantly said that they needed heroin to block out their lives. They told us that it eclipsed their minds, that it was the only substance available to them and that there was nothing else that could block out reality. It was a desperate experience to listen to them. One or two of the younger ones were in such terrible turmoil when they spoke to us about their habit that they found it impossible to continue and left the room. We were very uncomfortable and depressed about opening a door by encouraging them to tell us their life histories without necessarily being able to close it with effective treatment.
	I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that this is a matter of urgency and a serious issue for us to get our heads around. Hon. Members have suggested that we must get real. When the people involved are young, vulnerable, very poor, coping with tragedy and are often without families, and are living rough, in care homes or on deprived estates, that is getting very real. That is the reality in my constituency. When we put money in for regeneration, we must see that our aims will not be achieved if we do not reduce drug dependency, as both issues are tied together so closely. The matter is not exclusively one for the Home Office or the Department of Health; it is also a matter of employment and most definitely relates to local government and housing. All those issues are impacting on the lives of the young people involved. Building on that knowledge and acknowledging that the needs of individuals are different in every case tells us that, if the policy is to be effective, we need not only to build on our knowledge about the problem of use of drugs, but to accept that the policy must be flexible to need and respond to the needs of individuals. The more we do that, the more we will have a chance of achieving success.
	I am very pleased that there is a robust determination to help people to cut the dealer out of their lives. Our taking that stance is long overdue. The young people who spoke to us said that the dealers were like crows on their shoulders wherever they went. They said that if they had money in their pockets, the dealers were there and wanted to sell to them. We must cut the dealer out of their lives. The prescription of heroin in supervised conditions with careful treatments that are part of the overall process is very valuable. I interviewed people in their mid-30s and early 40s who will be permanently on heroin. We must come to terms with that fact. I do not want such people permanently to be dependent on heroin and committing crimes to feed their habit. We must allow them to control their habit and we must provide support, and prescription gives us the opportunity to do so.
	I am very pleased that we are focusing our attention on the problematic drug user. Such a person will be devastating his or her family's lives and the community in which he or she lives. The policy is beginning to resonate and to show that it is one that we can deliver.
	I should like to persuade my hon. Friend the Minister that the updated drugs policy needs to widen opportunities and increase services, which must be available 24/7 if they are to be effective. Inevitably, there will be a problem with having enough professionals quickly enough to allow us to respond now to the needs of our communities.
	I would also like to persuade my hon. Friend to look at an example in my constituency. We have a group of parents called Parents Against Narcotics in the Community—PANIC. They have coped with these problems and enabled their children to survive heroin and crack cocaine dependency. They have expert knowledge second to none, and they can tell us all. They do not need to read the book; they have lived the experience. They are delivering a service to a group of people in my constituency and I recommend them as a model for others. If we cannot train enough professionals or get the supply of support and services in place quickly enough, let us use the network of support that is already there.
	I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) talk about Tina Williams, a first-class female who has coped robustly with her own family and is now determinedly coping with the problem on a much wider scale. It is a joy to hear the young people speak of this female. She gives them hope and a hot meal, and their only opportunity to have a wash and brush-up and to feel decent and human. She makes them feel human. This woman needs all the commendations that we can give her. I am delighted that she is in my constituency and that she is running PANIC for the people of Stockton. They say that, without her, they would be desperate. So, let us use the resources that are there for us. Parents and grandparents want to help; they are there. Ex-addicts want to help; it makes them feel that they are giving something back when so much has been given to them.
	I also want to ask the Minister to consider the question of employment. Drug addicts need to feel wanted, for the sake of their self-esteem. They need to know that their talents and skills are recognised. Progress to work is excellent, but I want to persuade my hon. Friend to look at the Asian experience. There, employment is central to all treatment for drug addicts, and the success rate in getting addicts clean, involving employment, has been staggering. If they can do that in India, we can do it here.
	The updated drugs strategy is first class. Individual treatment and support are crucial, and the prescription of heroin will cut out those disgraceful, disgusting dealers who are earning £8 billion a year in Great Britain selling the stuff to our youngsters. Cutting them out is long overdue. Well done!

Andrew Rosindell: Listening to the first two hours of this debate, one might be forgiven for believing that there was consensus in the Chamber. The last few speakers, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) and for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), proved that that is not the case, however, and I believe that their views are far more representative of the British people at large, as are those of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). I make no apologies for adding my views to the arguments that they have put forward.
	It is time for hon. Members to speak up for the vast majority of decent, law-abiding people who will never have any desire to take part in this sick culture in our society. In my experience, the perception is that the war on drugs is not being lost, but purposely undermined by continual talk of decriminalisation, legalisation and reclassification. The Home Affairs Committee report has, sadly, added to that perception. In fact, the situation seems so bad in new Labour's Britain that I would not be surprised if a drug dealer were to be arrested for selling the substances in ounces, rather than simply for selling the substances.

Chris Mullin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Rosindell: No, there is very little time, so I intend to make as much progress as I can.
	From the outset, I want to make clear my opposition to every strand of thinking that tries to make excuses for those who take or deal in drugs, whatever the so-called classification of the drug, or the amount involved. If the Government are to have any credibility on this issue, and if anything at all is to be achieved, there must be a clear line: drugs are simply wrong. They kill our children, destroy the fabric of our society and have much wider effects in terms of financing international terrorism.
	Two weeks ago, I spent my Saturday night accompanying the police officers of Romford's crime and disorder unit around the town centre. Among the horrendous sights of that evening, we encountered a man who had been using cocaine. He was unable to control his actions and posed a clear danger to himself and members of the public. There is no justification in our society for peddlers of that evil drug to be free to walk the streets of my constituency, and those of other Members, and supply substances of that sort. We need the police to be given the resources to stamp such behaviour out completely.
	Equally, there is no excuse for tolerating those who take such substances. To those who argue that drug taking is an issue of freedom, my response is simple: I believe in freedom too. I believe in the people of this country being able to do as they wish, but that freedom comes with responsibility—the responsibility not to behave in a manner that is detrimental to others and that of playing their part in ensuring that the fabric of society is not ripped apart.

John MacDougall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Rosindell: As I have said, I want to make progress as there is little time left.
	The taking of drugs breaks that responsibility. That was best put by the Honourable Asa Hutchinson, the administrator of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration in a recent lecture to the Heritage Foundation:
	XDrug abusers become slaves to their habits. They are no longer able to contribute to the community. They do not have healthy relationships with their families. They are no longer able to use their full potential to create ideas or to energetically contribute to society, which is the genius of democracy. They are weakened by the mind-numbing effects of drugs. The entire soul of our society is weakened and our democracy is diminished by drug use."
	On that night in my constituency, that man found that he was exercising his freedom. He was also participating in the slow destruction of our society, not to mention the devastation that he must be causing, not only to himself, but to his family and friends.
	Drugs do not just harm the health of the drug user. They also lead to many related crimes, particularly in terms of violence, theft and, of course, road accidents. Drugs are a sickening culture in our society. Despite the domination of the debate by the liberal class, on cannabis I appeal to the good judgment of every Member of the House not to be taken in by the nonsensical and easily discredited arguments of those who support reclassification.
	The Christian Institute's May 2000 pamphlet, a copy of which I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), is entitled XGoing Soft on Cannabis". It outlines the counter-arguments to those often given for reclassifying that drug. I shall not go into detail, but for those who are interested the full document can be found on the Christian Institute website at www.christian.org.uk.
	Drug culture apologists often claim that cannabis is not a gateway drug to harder and more dangerous substances such as heroin or crack cocaine. However, the Christian Institute points to a series of studies that revealed that most abusers of hard drugs started their drug abuse career by smoking cannabis: 90 per cent. of those who had used it more than 1,000 times had used other illicit drugs, but only 6 per cent. of those who had never used cannabis had used hard drugs. Children between the ages of 12 and 17 who had smoked cannabis were 85 times more likely to end up using cocaine than their non-cannabis-smoking peers.
	Others try to claim that cannabis is less dangerous than alcohol. In 1995, an American study discovered a frightening statistic: 30 per cent. of a group of convicted murderers who were high on cannabis at the time of the homicides said that the crime had occurred because they were on cannabis.
	Another argument that is often advanced is that the current laws are not working. Why bother keeping them, those people ask. In fact it is not the laws that are wrong, but the soft approach taken by the Crown Prosecution Service, the police and the Government. They seem to have given up on the idea of prosecuting cannabis users, and now let them off with a caution. The proportion of cases dealt with by caution rose from 3 per cent. in 1982 to 55 per cent. in 1998. No wonder the law is not working, if no effort is put into maintaining it.
	The arguments for going soft on cannabis are all so easily defeated. I urge the Government to reconsider before giving the green light to thousands, if not millions, of young people to destroy their lives. I call on the Government and indeed the whole House, to reflect on the words of Nancy Reagan, which are etched on the wall of the Drug Enforcement Administration museum in America:
	XDrugs steal so much. Every time a drug goes into a child, something else is forced out, like love, and hope, and trust, and confidence. For the sake of our children, I implore each of you to be unyielding and inflexible in your opposition to drugs."
	I agree with Nancy Reagan. We cannot be flexible in our approach to drugs. The Government of this country must be resolute and firm.
	Drugs are simply wrong. They are killing our nation's children. They are funding those who wish to attack and take away our freedom. They are breaking down our society. We must act now with a comprehensive zero tolerance strategy. I fear that otherwise we will let down future generations and our nation, and will bitterly regret it in years to come.

John Mann: I fear that Nancy Reagan did not bring up her own children well enough for them to avoid drugs.
	I have much to say about the general issues, but no time in which to say them. I commend the Government's excellent document, the basis of which I wholeheartedly endorse, but I would waste more time by simply repeating what it says. I therefore intend, in the few minutes available to me, to make some points about what I would describe as the war on drugs that I think should be considered.
	Another good document was published last February—XChanging Habits", produced by the Audit Commission. In its conclusions it referred to one of the key problems that I encountered in my drugs inquiry. As I told the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart), it is mentioned on my website, johnmannmp.co.uk. It involves 150 case studies. I have spoken, in great depth, to heroin addicts and their parents, and I agree with many of the Audit Commission's findings.
	A critical issue, which the Government should address, is that of unco-ordinated assessment in relation to treatment. There are multiple referral routes, which is a core problem. The Audit Commission says that
	Xcurrent assessment practices often do little to secure either rapid access or appropriate treatment".
	There are Xlimited treatment options", as I was able to demonstrate effectively in my constituency. The commission also says that the
	Xtype of support offered by community drug services reflected staff mix"
	and that
	Xareas heavily reliant on specialist support frequently struggled to meet demand".
	Those problems all occur in my area, but the inconsistency of approach across the country has to be tackled. The ethos within the drugs treatment service has led to something of a Cinderella service. As the example of cancer and Macmillan nurses shows, there needs to be a point of reference to direct people into treatment. Hon. Members have made comparisons with the rest of Europe, but the statistical base—ours and theirs—is not particularly reliable, so the fact that there are 118,000 drug addicts in treatment is not a meaningful statistic when it is extrapolated down to my area. We need to quantify what is working and what is not. I have taken the trouble to write to the Minister and I shall publish my 20 specific questions on what needs to be quantified and how that should be done. It is at the core of the issue. In regard to ministerial and Government responsibility, and given the ethos in the National Treatment Agency, there is an urgent need to hold those responsible to account by quantifying successes and the failures and doing so honestly.
	I hope that in the coming months the Minister will challenge the notion of addicts having to present themselves for treatment. I find that a strange notion, but it runs through all UK drugs services and it is one reason for the confusion over what is treatment and who is in treatment and who is not. In my opinion, the notion of presenting needs to be knocked on the head, and I have many case studies—collected over a year, not a few weeks—to back that up. Some of them are cited anonymously and are ongoing. What does that mean in terms of people getting treatment when they want it and the availability of different forms of treatment. Thankfully, Opposition Front Benchers are now backing down, but when I challenged the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), at column 652 on 20 November, to quantify his evidence in relation to residential rehabilitation, he said that a considerable number should be going. We now have only a very small number. The right hon. Gentleman cited the Netherlands and he may well have visited the Parnassia Institute, where only 3 per cent. of clients are in residential rehabilitation.
	XChanging Habits" goes into great detail about the different options that are available. I would like a proper menu of treatments to be available in my constituency and I am sure that other hon. Members share my view.
	Another issue that needs to be examined is what I would describe as the incestuous nature of treatment services. For example, the very good chief executive of my local drug action team is also a non-executive director of the National Treatment Agency and the eight reference groups. The fact that one organisation presents the statistics is also part of the problem. That needs to be knocked on the head. The statistics need independent validation. The absurdity of joint commissioning in my area is that the patient care trust, which has to deal with the biggest problems of heroin addiction and drug addiction, is not represented on the joint commissioning group. I am glad that that is now being challenged, and if there are further problems I shall draw them to the Minister's attention. However, it demonstrates the mish-mash that has continued for many years in the UK. European comparisons are not particularly relevant. I would suggest that most countries are behind us rather than ahead of us in terms of treatment.
	I now turn to another problem. In The Guardian this week there are job adverts for drug treatment workers. The Prison Service is giving people permanent, well-paid jobs in drug treatment. The Stapleford Centre is recruiting a nurse practitioner on a salary of £33,000 to £36,000 and a medical officer on £65,000 to £77,000. Conversely, Turning Point in Sheffield employs drugs workers on one or two-year contracts and pays them £16,000 to £19,000 a year. Those are the extremes, but there are problems in relation to the lack of continuity and the inability to get the best-qualified people in areas where they are most needed. This may be controversial, but I would put it to the House that the best drugs workers should be working not in prison, but in the community. I would like the sentiment and some of the detail in the report to be taken to its logical conclusion. Young heroin addicts in my constituency are committing crimes; I have met only one who is not. I want them to be offered the option of being treated at the point at which they are arrested and enter the criminal justice system, rather than their simply going through the system and ending up in prison. Let us save the legal aid bill for defence costs, which, as the Audit Commission has shown, is the same as that for treatment. Let us recycle that money by treating young addicts at an early stage. That would make a fundamental difference.
	I have two final suggestions, the first of which is the integration of police files and health files. The Parnassia Institute took that incredibly important step seven years ago, so it can be done. My own chief constable is keen to follow suit. In analysing criminal activity, he cannot tell who the heroin addicts are. Similarly, the drugs services do not know who the criminals are. The two systems need to be merged. The Derbyshire drugs market project is a good example of how the effective collation of such information can be used to disrupt the drugs market and to get those people out of crime and into treatment, where such services exist.
	My final suggestion consists of a plea to the Minister and the Government. The Home Secretary said that
	Xstarting from next year in the highest crime areas with the worst drugs problems the Government will roll out a comprehensive end to end approach."
	In quantifying the areas with the worst drug problems, I hope that the artificial boundaries that have dissipated the problem throughout my area will not be used. East Bassetlaw does not differ greatly from the Nottinghamshire county average. It is the same as any other rural area, but in the area of west Bassetlaw, Worksop and the mining villages, the problem is very significant; in fact, it is ten times as bad. We want to be one of the pilots, and I trust that the Minister will give that suggestion proper consideration.

Bill Wiggin: I want to talk about two of my constituents, Mick and Pauline Holcroft, of Ledbury, who have allowed pictures of their daughter, Rachel Whitear—Mick Holcroft is Rachel's step-father—to be used in an anti-drugs video for secondary schools. They say that they want to Xmake people think" about the dangers of heroin, and to challenge stereotypes of drug abusers, because if it can happen to Rachel, it can happen to anyone.
	Rachel's mother and step-father believe that she first took heroin when she was 18, after being introduced to it by an older boyfriend who was an addict. At first, she kept her habit under control and was accepted by five universities. However, her addiction continued and her parents noticed that her personality had changed from fun-loving and outgoing to unhappy, insecure and unreliable. She died of an overdose in rented rooms in May 2000, aged 21, just days after phoning her parents to say that she was leaving her boyfriend and coming home. Her body lay undiscovered for three days. The police photographs show Rachel's body keeled over on the floor, with a hypodermic syringe in her hand. The photographs of Rachel after her death are pretty harrowing.
	If one were trying to put together an ideal background for a young person to grow up in, and in which to be happy and successful, the Holcroft family would be it, but even in that environment it was possible for this tragedy to happen. Mrs. Holcroft said:
	XI think Rachel really hated what had happened to her. But you can't take heroin one day and suddenly decide to stop."
	Rachel's step-father, Mr. Holcroft, said:
	XThere'll be a point in a child's life when someone says 'try that'. They'll be put into a circle where they are encouraged to try things and experiment."
	I think that I speak for the whole House when I say that we would all like that temptation to be made as difficult to encounter as possible. [Hon. Members: XHear, hear."]
	I sought the view of the Police Federation, which is the representative body of all police officers in England and Wales below the rank of superintendent. According to it, a large majority of such officers believe that cannabis should not be legalised or decriminalised. The role of the police is to enforce drug laws effectively. As we move further into the performance culture, their ability effectively to police the misuse of drugs will increasingly depend on working with other agencies. Those agencies will need to have complementary objectives and targets.
	Widespread concern has been voiced about the unavailability of appropriate treatment for drug users. The current position is unacceptable. More than 70 per cent. of crime is believed to be drug related. Between 70 per cent. and 80 per cent. of criminals in prison have drug problems, yet they leave prison without receiving treatment. It is unacceptable that the police should be held accountable for crime levels when treatment that could have a real impact on the commission of crime is not provided.
	The advocates of legalisation or decriminalisation present the apparent failure of the criminal law to prevent increased use of illegal drugs as a powerful argument for their cause. The same argument could be used to justify decriminalising burglary and assault and sweeping away all road traffic laws, but it is not. In recent times, a number of criminal offences, such as attempted suicide and homosexual acts between consenting adults, have been abolished. That was done because it was believed to be inappropriate to treat such acts as criminal, not because the criminal law had failed to prevent their occurrence.
	Legal prohibitions on tobacco and alcohol have not prevented young people below the statutory ages from smoking or drinking, but there is no responsible body of opinion that would justify decriminalising those offences. We do not believe that there is an overwhelming body of public opinion that favours the major relaxation of current anti-drug laws.
	I do not believe that we need a change in the law or in drug classification to change police priorities. Police officers use their discretion daily. The so-called Lambeth experiment was nothing new: police officers prioritise their work every day.
	There is no real contradiction under current legislation between a lenient police attitude towards possession for personal use and the continued targeting of criminals who import and distribute the drug. Advocates of the decriminalisation or legalisation of cannabis choose to ignore the fact that the drug's THC content—the active ingredient that encourages physical and psychological dependence on cannabis, and which is highly abusable—has risen from less than 1 per cent. in the 1960s to as high as 30 per cent. today.
	There is evidence from other countries—in particular from south Australia—that a more liberal approach to drug legislation results in an increase in petty theft and petty crime. The liberalisation lobby also claims that legalising drugs would end the black market and the activities of organised gangs. That assumes that the powerful international drug cartels would simply fade away into the night. The more likely scenario is that they would fight to maintain their lucrative street trade.
	The advocates of change do not say how they would control drug manufacture and supply. Presumably, the enormous cost of legalising the drug trade would be offset by tariffs and taxation. Once they were introduced, smuggling would follow and the illegal traders would be back in business.
	Some argue that the decriminalisation of drugs would destroy the criminal empires of those who currently make fortunes out of drugs. They often cite the end of alcohol prohibition in the US, and suggest that that ended the era in which criminal gangs exploited prohibition. The historical facts are different: gang crime in America soon recovered, as the criminals concentrated on other racketeering.
	The Government are right to reject the calls of those who urge the legalisation or decriminalisation of so-called soft drugs. There is no evidence that that would lead to a decrease in the numbers of people using drugs. Worrying as the overall increase in the numbers of young people who have taken drugs may be, those numbers would be even higher if the criminal sanctions were removed.
	The siren calls for decriminalisation and legalisation are not cries for reality. They are the voices of surrender and despair. I hope that the House will bear in mind the bravery displayed by Rachel Whitear's parents, and especially by her mother, Pauline Holcroft. If we can learn anything from that tragedy, it is that the fight against the evil of drugs in our society must continue unabated.

Paul Stinchcombe: I listened to the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) with great interest because I too am a dad. If I were asked what I wanted for my three children, I would not answer that I wanted them to grow up to have fantastic careers, or even stable happy family lives. I would say that I wanted them to grow up to avoid hard drugs. If they do that, everything else becomes possible for them, according to their talents and efforts. By contrast, if they do not avoid hard drugs, it is much more likely that their lives will be ruined.
	Yet if we are truly to tackle addiction and the crime to which it leads, we have to understand three critical truths, two of which have been understood by the Home Affairs Committee. First, all drugs are harmful but some drugs are much more harmful than others. Secondly, addicts are ill and need treatment, not punishment. Thirdly, prohibition does not always work. I believe that by their recent announcements, the Government have indicated that they have also understood at least the first two of those truths.
	All drugs are not equally harmful. Heroin and crack cocaine are desperately addictive and extremely dangerous, but other drugs are less so. Indeed, some prohibited drugs are less harmful than drugs that are legal. Alcohol is addictive, leads to violence, is damaging to health, and kills between 5,000 and 40,000 people every year in England and Wales—yet it is lawful to buy, lawful to sell and lawful to use, subject only to constraints on age and access.
	Tobacco is lawful too, even though it is addictive, causes cancer and kills 120,000 people every year in the UK. We do not like it, we cannot advertise it, we say that tobacco companies cannot sponsor sports—yet we cannot stop people using it. In the year 2000, only 11 death certificates in England and Wales even mentioned the word Xcannabis".
	If we tell our children that cannabis is as harmful as crack and heroin, they simply will not believe us. Why should they? If they do not believe that, why do we expect them to believe us about crack and heroin? We should downgrade cannabis, because the message that that carries is not simply that cannabis is less harmful than crack and heroin, but that crack and heroin are killers and desperately dangerous.
	There is a second reason why we should downgrade cannabis: the simple fact that we want to be tough on crime. When the police are not chasing people who are smoking a relatively harmless recreational drug, they can start targeting the crack and heroin dealers in death. We should all applaud that.
	The second truth is that addiction to hard drugs is a sickness and, like all sick people, addicts need treatment, not punishment. At present, however, the treatment they get is all too often woeful. It takes my constituents months to get on to a rehab programme, which is why, like everyone else in the Chamber, I welcome the millions more to be spent on rehabilitation. It is why I also welcome, alongside the extended methadone treatments, the schemes for prescribing heroin.
	It is stupid to refuse to prescribe heroin to long-term addicts who need it, and who otherwise will rob others to feed their habit. I have been to a clinic in London; I have seen a doctor prescribe to addicts. One was a middle-aged mother, happily married for many years. Why on earth should we force her into the arms of a dealer when she can attend a clinic instead? Another was the wife of a man in his sixties who had injected opiates for 30 years. Do we really believe that he will ever stop injecting opiates? He did not even stop when he could no longer inject into his veins. He simply injected into his muscles instead.
	We have to change our approach to prescribing. Too often, treatment is restrained by moral judgmentalism when it should be dictated by medical expertise. As I understand it, the current advice from the Government is not to maintain the patient but to reduce his or her dependency by prescribing ever-decreasing amounts. As a result, because addicts cannot get enough methadone from their clinic, they top up by buying street heroin from their dealer. In what other medical discipline would a doctor determine how much of a drug someone needed and then deliberately prescribe less? I do not believe that that is good medical practice—I believe that it is medical cruelty.
	I accept that there is a risk of abuse if higher amounts are prescribed. I know that, and so do doctors. They are well aware that there will be those who seek more than they need so that they can sell the excess. However, we can monitor the doctors and the doctors can monitor their prescriptions and their patients to ensure that the risk is minimised. They can see for themselves whether a patient is capable of injecting safely. They can test patients to see exactly what their tolerance is. They can test their hair samples to see exactly what they have taken and whether they are topping up or selling the excess on the street.
	That is not to say that we should never try to reduce dependency on drugs. Of course we should, but we should seek cleverer ways of doing so than simply prescribing less of the drugs that people need. My hon. Friend the Minister knows that there is a drug available—Naltrexone—that blocks the effects of heroin altogether. That means that there is no point in people mugging an old lady for 30 quid to buy a fix, because they will not get a buzz from the fix.
	The trouble with Naltrexone is that it is principally available in tablet form. Addicts will not take it in that form, because taking the tablet takes away what is often their only pleasure in life. There is a solution: implants that can wean the addict off for weeks are available, yet they are not licensed on the NHS nor routinely used in our prisons. That is absurd.
	Why do we not make better use of Naltrexone implants? Why do we not make wide use of them in the judicial system? Why do we not urge courts to offer drug-addicted criminals an implant, as part of—or even instead of—imprisonment? Why do we not offer them to prisoners before they are released? I understand that at present prisons offer Naltrexone only in tablet form—and only in a third of men's prisons and not at all in women's prisons, even though heroin addiction is rife in all of them.
	We reduce a prisoner's dependency and then we kick them out into the street—the same street that they used to live in, next door to the same dealer from whom they used to buy. By then their tolerance is lower, so when they buy from that same dealer, they overdose and die. What is the alternative to Naltrexone? Is it to detox addicts in prison and then retox them ready for release? That is absurd.
	There is a third truth—unpalatable to many—but it arises from everything that I have said: prohibition does not work. It did not work when it was applied to booze in the USA; it merely handed the trade to the mafia. It is not working at present in respect of drugs worldwide. The global trade is worth up to $1,000 billion a year; it is worth £8 billion in this country—little wonder that drug-related crime is up.
	Things do not have to be like that. We can encourage heroin addicts into the arms of doctors instead of the arms of dealers. If we were brave enough, we could take the trade in cannabis away from criminals, license it, regulate it, tax it and make it safe. Of course there would still be some street trading, but there would be less. Furthermore, there would be no mixed messages for the police, because anyone dealing with drugs on the street would be a criminal.
	If we want to drive down street crime, we have to do more than police aggressively in areas where it is endemic. We need to do more than sentence punitively our most serious and recidivist offenders. We must also focus our minds on the causes of crime when a more liberal touch may be more effective. 6.52 pm

Chris Mullin: The debate has been excellent. We have heard many original and thoughtful speeches from Members on both sides of the House. I thank especially colleagues on the Select Committee for their contributions both today and during the course of the inquiry. One of the great strengths of the Select Committee system is that it is possible to hold a mature discussion on issues that cannot always be discussed maturely in other parts of the political process—let alone in the media.
	I was disappointed with the contribution of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), the Conservative spokesman. I felt that it did not quite rise to the occasion. I was especially disappointed by his abuse of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn). We might not necessarily agree with him, but we must recognise that he is one of the few Members of the House—with the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley)—who were prepared to discuss this subject when nobody else would. My hon. Friend was prepared to challenge deeply ingrained prejudices, and although I do not necessarily agree with him about everything, we should acknowledge that.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Surrey Heath on one point: it is important to take the damage done by people who drive under the influence of drugs as seriously as that done by people who drive under the influence of drink.
	As I listened to some of the later contributions to the debate, I had to pinch myself occasionally to remind myself that, as I made clear in my opening remarks, the Select Committee actually came out against decriminalisation and legalisation. We emphasised from the outset that all drugs are harmful, as I think we all agree—but that the degree of harm varies.
	Although the Committee had a number of things to say about the classification of cannabis and ecstasy, we should not get too distracted by the arguments over that. Yes, both of them are bad for people. Any sensible person would acknowledge that. However, the key issue is that they are not the main cause of the problem. Most people who take ecstasy or cannabis grow out of it fairly quickly and go on to lead useful and productive lives.
	Those drugs are not, on the whole, addictive. It is true that people die from taking them; I would not wish to be misunderstood. We all understand that all drugs are harmful. It is just that some are more harmful than others. Once we have worked that out, we come very quickly to the idea that the cause of almost all the drug-related chaos in society arises from the abuse of heroin and crack cocaine. About 99 per cent. of drug-related damage comes from those two drugs.
	Once that essential point is grasped, one or two other things become obvious. One is that we must try to persuade the 200,000 or so chaotic users of heroin—who are responsible for about 50 per cent. of acquisitive crime and who damage not only their own lives but those of their communities and families; we have heard harrowing examples of that today—to seek help to stabilise their lives. Until we do that, we cannot even begin to address the problems that they are causing. It is true that some are well beyond the point at which their lives can be changed; they will not change and become clean and good citizens. However, we can stabilise their lives and stop them mugging, burgling and doing more damage to themselves and the people around them.
	That brings us inevitably to the fact that we need the controlled prescription of heroin and diamorphine. I am glad that the Government are facing up to that issue. This is not rocket science, and it has been done with great success in countries such as Switzerland and the Netherlands. We heard from experts from those countries who told us how it was working. One caution; there has to be tight control of the system because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) said, we do not want leakage on to the streets, which just exacerbates the problem. That was one of the reasons why the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 was brought in. The system must be strictly controlled.
	One of the problems that became apparent during the inquiry was the disappointing lack of interest from members of the medical profession. One can understand that a GP will not want his surgery clogged up with addicts, but we have had great difficulty in extracting from the British Medical Association any evidence at all on the issue. When we insisted that it make some sort of contribution, it consisted of less than a page, two thirds of which was about what the BMA stood for and did. That was a problem.
	One doctor who gave evidence said that only half an hour out of seven years of medical training had involved dealing with people on drugs. We are getting better at this and I know that there are many dedicated members of the medical profession who are engaged in dealing with drug addiction—

Howard Stoate: Hear, hear.

Chris Mullin: We have one not too far from me. However, the medical profession could do more in encouraging and training its members in this regard.
	Finally, I repeat what I said in my opening remarks. There is no Xone true path" in this matter. I am envious of the certainty of the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell), but—if I might say so, with respect— people who have given more thought to this matter than he has have worked out that there is no perfect solution to a problem that is serious and out of control. We are on a learning curve and feeling our way forward, but there is a certain amount of experience in the world. One can look abroad; foreigners can make a contribution to the way in which we deal with our problems, on which we can build.
	The way forward is clear for the foreseeable future. It is along the road of prevention, treatment and harm reduction. That is way that we are going. The path is set for the foreseeable future, but it is not set in stone.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I compliment the hon. Gentleman on his timing.
	It being Seven o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker proceeded to put forthwith the Questions relating to Estimates which he was directed to put at that hour, pursuant to Standing Order No.54 (Consideration of estimates, &c.).
	Resolved,
	That resources, not exceeding £4,651,171,000, be authorised, on account, for use during the year ending on 31st March 2004, and that a sum, not exceeding £4,597,261,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for the year ending on 31st March 2004, for expenditure by the Home Office.
	It being after Seven o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker proceeded to put forthwith the Questions relating to Estimates which he was directed to put at that hour, pursuant to Standing Order No.55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.).

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 2002–03

Resolved,
	That further resources, not exceeding £7,400,007,000, be authorised for use for defence and civil services for the year ending on 31st March 2003, and that a further sum, not exceeding £8,995,029,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to meet the costs of defence and civil services for the year ending on 31st March 2003, as set out in HC 43.

ESTIMATES, 2003–04 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)

Resolved,
	That resources, not exceeding £151,331,461,000, be authorised, on account, for use for defence and civil services for the year ending on 31st March 2004, and that a sum, not exceeding £126,882,161,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, to meet the costs of defence and civil services for the year ending on 31st March 2004, as set out in HC 39, 40, 41 and 42.
	Ordered,
	That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing resolutions: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Paul Boateng, Dawn Primarolo, Ruth Kelly and John Healey do prepare and bring it in.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Ruth Kelly accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending 31st March 2003 and 2004 and to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31st March 2003 and 2004: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday next and to be printed [Bill 14].

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the Questions on motions 5, 6 and 7.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Companies

That the Companies (Fees) (Amendment No.2) Regulations 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 2894), dated 21st November, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st November, be approved.

Northern Ireland

That the draft Harbours (Northern Ireland) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 21st November, be approved.

Social Security

That the draft Jobseeker's Allowance (Amendment) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 20th November, be approved.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
	Question agreed to.

PETITION
	 — 
	Consumers for Health Choice

Bob Blizzard: I wish to present a petition from 365 of my constituents who are customers of the Oregano health food shop in Lowestoft. They are very concerned that the European food supplements directive and the proposed European directive on traditional herbal medicinal products could severely restrict their choice of safe, natural health products, which they have used successfully for a long time.
	The petition states:
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons requires that the Secretary of State for Health does all in his power to protect the rights of UK consumers by ensuring that such European legislation does not unnecessarily and unacceptably restrict the availability of natural health products.
	And the petitioners remain etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

FUTURE OF MATER AND WHITEABBEY HOSPITALS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

Nigel Dodds: I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise a matter of considerable importance to my constituents. The debate surrounding the future of the two hospitals in my constituency and the range of services that they provide arises from the document, XDeveloping Better Services: Modernising Hospitals and Reforming Structures", which was published by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety earlier this year. That document contains the proposals of the previous Minister responsible for health in Northern Ireland on hospital services and the reform of organisational structures for health and personal social services in the Province.
	I want to deal particularly with the proposal outlined in paragraph 4.19 of the report that Whiteabbey and Mater hospitals will be developed as local hospitals. Previously, the constituency of north Belfast, with its various needs, difficulties and challenges, had two hospitals providing a range of services. They provided acute services and addressed severe health and social and economic needs. This proposal means that we will be left without any such provision. I acknowledge that there is clearly a need for decisions to be made in this area, and that the Minister, in a speech yesterday in the Province, said that he would announce decisions and address those issues. That does need to happen. Decisions need to be made about the location of hospitals and the administrative and management structures for health and personal social services.
	Change in itself is not a problem. The problem comes when change does not meet the health needs of the local community, does not lead to efficiencies and greater effectiveness and ignores what is happening and what is needed on the ground. One of my concerns, which is shared by many of my constituents, is that the report, particularly in relation to the Mater, appears to focus more on the needs of professional standards, training and practice and less on the patients, the community and people's needs. It is essential that what happens in relation to the Mater and Whiteabbey be in the best interests of the people and communities of north Belfast, and in the best interests of addressing social care needs and the health of the community. No other agenda should drive the proposals.
	There is no doubt that the proposals, as set out by the previous Minister, will have a severe impact on the local community. They will lead to the loss of a range of key acute and emergency services and the loss of many local job opportunities in an area of severe unemployment. They will dent morale considerably at a time when it is recognised that north Belfast requires attention at the highest level of Government, not least by the setting up of the community action unit, as a result of the community action project, which addresses a range of issues in north Belfast. To remove the Mater hospital with its acute and emergency provisions and a wide range of other services would denude the constituency of a major facility that is supported across the political spectrum and across the community. That would leave a gaping hole in north Belfast.
	I want to set out the positive context of some of the things that are happening in health and personal social services in north Belfast. On Monday, I had the great honour and privilege of attending the launch of three new healthy living centres in Duncairn gardens, in which cross-community groups and people from a wide spectrum across the community divide are coming together to provide £2 million worth of investment in north Belfast. The north and west Belfast health action zone has been established. Proposals are coming forward from the North and West Belfast Health and Social Services Trust on new health and well-being centres.
	All that will be undermined if the Government say that they will downgrade the Mater and Whiteabbey to the status of local hospitals. The proposals are not logical, they follow no previous consistent argument, and the proposals in relation to the Mater hospital were a bolt out of the blue. No Government proposal or document had indicated that that was the thinking, and it did not follow from the conclusion of the Hayes report. The acute hospital review group suggested no such way forward; indeed, it suggested the retention of acute and emergency services at the Mater and a partnership with Whiteabbey hospital.
	Seventeen out of the 20 wards in north Belfast are among the 25 per cent. most health-deprived wards in Northern Ireland. The Mater hospital is situated in Crumlin, the most socially and economically deprived ward in the whole of Northern Ireland. Ten out of the 20 north Belfast wards are in the 25 per cent. of wards in Northern Ireland with the highest ratio for cancer. There is clear evidence to suggest that that is linked to the high level and incidence of social and economic deprivation. We have a major problem with suicide rates, particularly among men. Mental health is another severe problem and we have some of the worst levels of drug and substance abuse anywhere in the Province or, indeed, in the United Kingdom. When we take all that into account, it is unthinkable that the Government should continue with the proposals set out in the document XDeveloping Better Services". I urge the Minister to examine those proposals and to reject them and, instead, to decide to retain the Mater and Whiteabbey hospitals in their current form.
	It should also be noted that the Mater is the biggest single employer in Northern Ireland, with 1,000 employees, many of whom live in north Belfast, an area that does not have many major employers. The civil disturbances, the trouble and the violence have had disproportionate effect on the greater Shankhill and north Belfast area and the Mater hospital has throughout provided a dedicated and magnificent service to the people there. The accident and emergency ward is one of the busiest and biggest in Northern Ireland and it has demonstrated that it is meeting a terrible need in that part of the city.
	In my previous role as the Northern Ireland Minister for Social Development, I played a part in setting up the community action unit. I know that the Minister has taken over responsibility for that, and is dedicated to it. It has targeted social need, which means concentrating Government resources on the areas of greatest need, and is carrying out the key objective set out in the document XInvesting in Health".
	Given all the problems in north Belfast, to suggest that workers could simply relocate to other hospitals does not take into account the problems that people have with access. People in north Belfast do not have as much access to private transport as people do in other areas, and there are also problems in getting through parts of north Belfast. As we know, there are severe community segregation problems. It is not an answer to say that people can go elsewhere. People from all communities and backgrounds feel safe in the Mater. I urge the Minister not to deprive the people of Belfast of that facility.
	I referred earlier to the cross-community and all-party support for the views that I am expressing. Belfast city council has unanimously supported the same view and in the last debate in the Northern Ireland Assembly before suspension all parties across the board unanimously supported the retention of these services. The support did not come just from the representatives from north Belfast but from those from elsewhere.
	A strong and vigorous local community campaign has been under way. Tens of thousands of signatures have been gathered, and the campaign has actively engaged the community. From greater Shankhill through to all the other parts of north Belfast, the response has been magnificent. It has come from the trade unions, professional bodies and the North Belfast Partnership Board, which is representative of nationalist and Unionist communities. They have all thrown their full weight behind the campaign for the retention of the Mater and of acute and emergency services throughout Northern Ireland. People are appalled at the suggestion that the proud traditions of the Mater could be lost and that services could be taken from the people of north Belfast.
	I recently toured the hospital and looked at the magnificent facilities in the new McAuley building. It was built at a cost of £17 million, and not a penny of it came from public money. To think that that investment could be set aside and that the hospital could be downgraded would involve a terrible misuse of the money that went to provide the people of the area with the services to which they are entitled.
	In terms of financial targets, activity and capacity, the Mater has met its targets, is increasing its capacity and its service performance compares well with any hospital of a similar nature anywhere in the Province. The Minister has been grappling with the problem of waiting lists in Northern Ireland. It is incredible to think that such a proposal will not have an adverse effect on Belfast waiting lists. He will have seen some of the evidence adduced by the Mater Hospital Trust, which shows that waiting lists would increase.
	Some people have suggested that it might be a good idea to turn the hospital into a local hospital, but given the services that will be lost, the word Xlocal" needs to be explained. Let us consider what will happen if the proposals are implemented. We will lose accident and emergency services, intensive care, intensive general medicine, the in-patient cardiology and coronary care unit, in-patient diabetic services, in-patient respiratory medicine, in-patient general surgery, in-patient gynaecology and the laboratory and anaesthetic services. Other services will also go. That is not acceptable.
	The report suggests ways to develop better services, such as the hospital taking on rehabilitation beds, intermediate care and step-down beds. I cannot understand how those services could be provided if all the other services have gone. Who on earth will provide the back-up in an emergency or when someone needs intensive care if there are no doctors, medical staff or beds? It has also been suggested that maternity services can stay, but if everything that is needed to have a maternity unit in situ is removed, then the report is simply paying lip service to that idea.
	For many decades, the Mater hospital has provided an environment for the training and teaching of nurses and medical staff. That proud tradition will go if the proposals are implemented. Paragraph 4.35 of the report says that the Mater
	Xwill be ideally placed to play an even more significant role in contributing to the training of doctors, nurses and other health professionals of the future",
	but that is not feasible if the range of services that I outline disappear.
	It is clear that the proposals run counter to the suggestions of Dr. Hayes's acute hospital review group. He suggested a partnership between Whiteabbey and the Mater. That idea has disappeared. He suggested that acute services be retained for the foreseeable future. Indeed, he opposes the idea of a transitional phase that leads to the establishment of a local hospital. He referred to a regional service located in the Mater. That idea seems to have disappeared too.
	The health and social care needs of the local community must be a priority. The people of north Belfast and the Newtonabbey area, which are served by Whiteabbey hospital, deserve better. I accept that there are issues that the Minister must address for Northern Ireland, but the proposals run counter to the general thrust of Government policy on north Belfast given the amount of attention, resources and efforts that are focused there to deal with deep underlying social, economic and political problems.
	It is wrong to rip from the heart of a community a hospital that has served everyone. It has the support of the entire community—nationalist and Unionist, Protestant and Catholic. Indeed, nationalists, Unionists, Protestants and Catholics all work in it. The idea that it should be run down and that the investment and years of proud tradition should be cast aside without a consistent argument to support the proposition up to now cannot be allowed to stand. I know that the Minister has taken the trouble to speak to people about the proposal and that he is interested in the issue. I urge him to reconsider and to discard the proposals in the report.

Des Browne: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) on securing the debate. I am grateful to him for his comments, which have allowed me to hear the concerns for the future of hospital services in his constituency. I stress that I have made no decisions in relation to the proposals for acute hospital services set out in XDeveloping Better Services: Modernising Hospitals and Reforming Structures", but I am mindful of the real deprivation in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and in other constituencies in Northern Ireland, and I will want to reflect carefully on his comments. I know that the issue of the future of the Mater hospital was the subject of an Adjournment debate in the Northern Ireland Assembly—it was the last debate before suspension—which drew strong cross-party support for the retention of acute services at the hospital. I am aware also of Belfast city council's position on the issue.
	The proposals for modernising hospitals set out in XDeveloping Better Services" are a recognition that the complexities of hospital services, and what they can deliver, have changed enormously over the past 30 years. However, the fact is that in Northern Ireland the necessary investment has not been made to keep up with the pace of change. As a result, it is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain services in some hospitals and the service is facing critical and mounting problems. Far too many people are waiting too long for hospital treatment, with pressures growing annually on hospital beds. What were once considered winter pressures have become an all-year-round occurrence.
	The fabric of many hospitals is in disrepair and staff are trying to cope with outdated equipment and facilities. That is not acceptable and cannot be allowed to continue. It will require radical and sustained change in the operation and delivery of hospital services if we are to achieve the sort of modern dynamic hospital service that is capable of delivering the very highest standards of care, to meet the health care needs of the 21st century.
	Some of the pressures facing our hospital system are inescapable. People are living longer and in their later years they are more likely to suffer from chronic illness such as heart disease, diabetes or arthritis. Consequently, they require more care by a wide range of staff in hospitals, the allied health professions and by those in the community. At the other end of the spectrum, many more children and young people are suffering chronic health problems such as asthma and diabetes. Many conditions require long-term care, often with complex hospital-based treatments throughout their lives.
	At the same time, as perhaps never before, we are seeing significant developments in health care, with new medicines available to treat and relieve the symptoms of both chronic and acute conditions, such as malignant disease, heart disease, rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis. There are also advances in surgical techniques, with less invasive forms of surgery requiring shorter hospital stays, with many procedures now being carried out as an out-patient or day procedure, which previously would have required a long hospital stay.
	Perhaps one of the most significant changes in the past 20 years has been the advance of medical engineering technology, such as medical imaging using CT, MRI and recently, PET scanners. Advances also in information and communications technology are beginning to transform how information is used and shared in and between hospitals. Telemedicine in particular, which allows images to be transmitted from a GP surgery to a consultant for advice, perhaps many miles away, is already making an impact on the way in which care is being provided.
	We cannot expect doctors and other hospital staff to become expert in every new method of working. Instead, many are now focusing their interests on particular specialties or sub-specialties, bringing with them increased expertise and even greater advances in treatment and care. It also means that the era of the medical generalist trained to provide a wide range of clinical services is coming to an end.
	We must also embrace the much more stringent requirements covering the degree of supervision and the specific nature of the work that is being undertaken by medical trainees. Increasingly the jobs available to junior doctors and other professional staff do not provide the opportunity to develop the sort of skills and experience that are necessary for modern practice.
	Improving the standard of hospital care and the environment in which care is provided must be a major priority. The requirement for trusts to provide quality care will soon become a statutory responsibility, and accountability for the delivery of services will be strengthened by robust clinical and social care governance arrangements. The proposals in XDeveloping Better Services" recognise those inescapable drivers for change, and set out a pattern of hospital care which aims to concentrate regional and specialist acute care in an acute hospital network which can foster and develop the range of specialist skills required to deliver modern high-quality acute care. But the proposals also recognise that advances in medical treatment and technology mean that many procedures which currently require attendance at an acute hospital no longer need to be provided in that setting. The majority of out-patient and day procedures can now be completed safely outside an acute hospital setting, and so too can high-quality diagnostics, linking to the acute network through telemedicine or linked digital imaging systems. Those are not advances of tomorrow, but opportunities for today, and I agree with the underlying logic of the proposals.
	XDeveloping Better Services" has proposed that the present pattern of 15 acute hospitals should be reconfigured to nine, with the remaining hospitals providing a wide range of local services, such as a minor injuries unit, out-patient and day procedures, high-quality diagnostic services and a number of step-down beds for people who have received treatment in an acute hospital, but no longer need to be there for the remainder of their hospital convalescence, thus freeing up much needed beds for others. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is proposed that the Mater and Whiteabbey hospitals be reconfigured to provide a range of local services, such as those that I have outlined, and operate as local hospitals linked to the acute hospital network.
	I am aware that the proposals for the Mater hospital in particular have engendered widespread concern, not only within the Mater Hospital Trust and its staff, but also across the community in north Belfast, as well as among elected representatives across the political spectrum, who have united with the Mater to support the retention of its acute services. The Mater hospital has a special place in the hearts of the community in north Belfast, fostered through the worst of the civil conflict in Northern Ireland over the past 30 years, and has provided a neutral haven of care for north Belfast, an area which has some of the worst deprivation in Northern Ireland, as we have heard. To date, some 35,000 letters and petitions have been received by the Department in support of retaining acute services at the Mater, as well as a number of detailed submissions which are being carefully considered as part of the post-consultation process.
	No decisions have been taken on any of the proposals in XDeveloping Better Services", and before coming to a final decision, I will want to satisfy myself about the proposals to remove acute services from the Mater and whether the hospital, networking with the Royal group of hospitals and Belfast city hospital, could meet the longer-term needs of the north Belfast community. No one can be in any doubt of the significant effect of years of community strife on the community in north Belfast, which has suffered some of the worst sectarian violence of the past 30 years. Nor are such days behind us, alas. The legacy of sectarian strife will remain with the community, particularly the young people of the area, for many years to come, manifesting itself in mental health problems and drug and alcohol abuse. I pay tribute to the work of the many cross-community groups in north Belfast that are working tirelessly to lift north Belfast out of the legacy of the past and give new hope to the rising generation.
	It is well recognised that areas of high deprivation such as north Belfast bring with them a range of chronic health care problems. I know that, for many, the Mater has become a lifeline for the diagnosis, treatment and care of chronic conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, which is associated with emphysema and smoking. One of the other manifestations of deprivation is unemployment—the Mater hospital is a significant employer in north Belfast—and the proposals for change have brought with them a very real fear for job losses in the hospital. I would be extremely concerned if the net effect of the proposals were to mean job losses in north Belfast, and I want to look very carefully at that aspect of the proposals before coming to any final decision.
	The Mater has given north Belfast long and distinguished service since it was established in 1883, and up until the deed of arrangement in 1971 was funded entirely by the Young Philanthropists, mostly by small donations invested in trust funds for the future. Many people in north Belfast have a very real sense of ownership of the Mater, and I understand why the proposals have generated such strong feeling in the community. Some £17 million has been raised entirely by the Mater Trust and the community to develop new facilities such the McAuley wing in the hospital, which has some of the most modern facilities of any hospital in Northern Ireland. I have not yet had the privilege of seeing those facilities, but in view of the number of responses and the concerns expressed about the proposals in XDeveloping Better Services", I hope to visit the Mater to see the McAuley wing for myself, as well as to take the opportunity to talk to staff and members of the wider community. I want to do that before reaching decisions at the end of January.
	However, I know that both the acute hospitals review group and XDeveloping Better Services" proposed that acute services should continue at the Mater for some years to come. I would certainly agree with that. It has not been lost on me that, in an area so divided by sectarian strife in recent times, the Mater issue has united the entire community. Therefore, I can say now that for a considerable period ahead, the Mater will continue to provide a full range of acute services to the north Belfast area. My hope is that in declaring that intention now, I can significantly reduce the concerns of the very large numbers of people who have campaigned for the retention of acute services at the Mater ahead of final decisions.
	Having said that, I also referred to the enormous changes that have taken place in hospital services in recent years and to the drivers for further significant change. It will be essential to regularly review the profile and configuration of hospital services, and it will equally be essential that the Mater develops close working relationships with the Royal Victoria and the Belfast city hospitals so that it becomes an integral part of a Belfast teaching hospitals clinical network.
	Whiteabbey hospital provides a limited range of acute services and XDeveloping Better Services" proposed that it should become a local hospital providing a range of local services as I outlined, linked to the acute hospital network. Whiteabbey is situated between Antrim hospital and the acute hospital network in Belfast. I know that the acute hospitals review group report suggested that Whiteabbey should network with the Mater to provide hospital services. XDeveloping Better Services" did not address that recommendation, but it is worth considering such a network. If the Mater were to continue to provide a full range of acute services, there would be merit in developing Whiteabbey as a modern local hospital delivering a wide range of local services and networking both with Antrim hospital and the Mater, since I understand that many people in the Whiteabbey and Newtownabbey areas look to Belfast rather than Antrim for acute hospital services.
	Once again, I want to reflect on the responses to the consultation and consider the long-term viability of the acute services that are currently delivered at Whiteabbey and the opportunities that a local hospital might bring to the wider Whiteabbey community. I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of the consultative process and I realise that I cannot give the hon. Member for Belfast, North all the assurances that he requires. However, I am very much alive to the concerns of the people in his constituency and have sympathy with them. My overriding aim is to get the best possible outcome from the proposals in XDeveloping Better Services" that will address the compelling need for change in hospital care.
	I can, however, give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that, in common with all the proposals in XDeveloping Better Services", I will not come lightly to any decisions that will set the future direction of hospital services in Northern Ireland for many years to come.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Eight o'clock.